AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q Comparison

# AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q

The AMD Instinct MI325X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, one a 1000 W OAM compute module built for dense data-center workloads and the other a 35 W integrated graphics processor designed for thin, power-limited notebooks. The recorded data shows no overlapping benchmark scores, no shared performance tests, and no direct head-to-head measurements in the database; both cards sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. The comparison therefore rests entirely on architectural and specification differences, and those differences are stark: 19456 shading units versus 3072, 256 GB of HBM3e versus 8 GB of GDDR6, and a 1017 mm² die against a 159 mm² chip.

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI325X wins in every category where raw compute throughput, memory capacity, or memory bandwidth determines the outcome. Its FP32 output is 81.72 TFLOPS, which is 9.04 times the RTX 4060 Max-Q's 9.032 TFLOPS. The FP16 rate matches the FP32 rate at a 1:1 ratio on both cards, so the MI325X also leads in half-precision work by the same factor. Texture rate favors the MI325X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 141.1 GTexel/s, a margin of roughly 18 to 1. The memory subsystem is not close: 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth on an 8192-bit bus with 256 GB of HBM3e dwarfs the 256.0 GB/s on a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6. For large model training, inference batches that exceed 8 GB, or any workload that streams tensors through memory, the MI325X is the only viable option of the two.

The RTX 4060 Max-Q wins in the categories that matter for client-side graphics and portable operation. It has 48 ROPs and a pixel rate of 70.56 GPixel/s; the MI325X has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The NVIDIA part also carries 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores, hardware that the AMD accelerator does not list at all. Display outputs are marked "Portable Device Dependent" on the RTX 4060 Max-Q, while the MI325X has no outputs. API support further separates them: the RTX 4060 Max-Q supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI325X reports N/A for all three. Any application that renders frames to a screen, uses ray tracing, or relies on DirectX or Vulkan belongs to the NVIDIA side.

Power efficiency is another clear win for the RTX 4060 Max-Q. Its 35 W TDP is 28.6 times lower than the MI325X's 1000 W TDP. The AMD part requires a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the NVIDIA part has no suggested PSU listed. In mobile or small-form-factor contexts, the RTX 4060 Max-Q can operate where the MI325X physically cannot.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward split: the Instinct MI325X is for compute centers that need massive memory capacity and extreme FP32/FP16 throughput, and the RTX 4060 Max-Q is for laptops that need rasterization, ray tracing, and API compatibility within a 35 W envelope. The MI325X uses an OAM module slot width, has no power connectors, and cannot output to a display; it is not a graphics card in the traditional sense. The RTX 4060 Max-Q is an IGP with active production status, a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, and a full modern graphics API stack.

Neither card is substitutable for the other. The MI325X's 256 GB memory pool and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth serve workloads that would exhaust the RTX 4060 Max-Q's 8 GB frame buffer in moments. Conversely, the RTX 4060 Max-Q's 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores provide features the MI325X does not expose, and its 48 ROPs deliver pixel output the MI325X cannot produce at all. The percentile ranking of 50 for both cards reflects their position within their respective product classes, not equivalence in capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries and no average benchmark scores for either card, so the comparison must be drawn from the specification-level measurements recorded for each. The largest single margin is in memory bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s, a 24.0 times difference. The bus width drives this: 8192 bit versus 128 bit, a 64 times disparity that the MI325X's HBM3e memory partially offsets with a 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) clock versus the RTX 4060 Max-Q's 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) GDDR6 clock. The NVIDIA part runs its memory at a higher effective speed, but the AMD part has 64 times more physical lines to move data.

Compute throughput shows a similar pattern. The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 against 9.032 TFLOPS, a 9.05 times lead. Its 19456 shading units are 6.33 times the RTX 4060 Max-Q's 3072, and its 1216 TMUs are 12.67 times the NVIDIA part's 96. The texture rate difference of 18.1 times reflects the TMU count more than clock speed, since the MI325X boosts to 2100 MHz and the RTX 4060 Max-Q to 1470 MHz, a 1.43 times clock advantage that does not close the gap.

The RTX 4060 Max-Q's wins are absolute rather than proportional. The MI325X has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, so the NVIDIA part's 48 ROPs and 70.56 GPixel/s represent an infinite margin in practical terms. The MI325X also lists no RT cores and no tensor cores, so the RTX 4060 Max-Q's 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores are unmatched. Transistor density slightly favors the MI325X at 150.4M per mm² versus 118.9M per mm², but the RTX 4060 Max-Q achieves this on a much smaller 159 mm² die with 18,900 million transistors against the MI325X's 1017 mm² die and 153,000 million transistors.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI325X output video to a display?

A: No. The database records "No outputs" for the MI325X and its API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The RTX 4060 Max-Q has display outputs marked "Portable Device Dependent."

Q: Which card has ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q lists ray tracing resources: 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores. The AMD Instinct MI325X records no RT cores and no tensor cores.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RTX 4060 Max-Q has a 35 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each card?

A: The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and the RTX 4060 Max-Q delivers 9.032 TFLOPS FP32. Both cards run FP16 at the same rate as FP32 (1:1).

Q: Which card is currently in production?

A: The RTX 4060 Max-Q has an "Active" production status. The MI325X has no production status recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm TSMC process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. Its transistor density is 150.4M per mm². The RTX 4060 Max-Q uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, also on a 5 nm TSMC process, with 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die and a density of 118.9M per mm². Both foundries are TSMC and both processes are 5 nm, but the MI325X packs roughly 8.1 times more transistors onto 6.4 times more silicon area.

The MI325X reports 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, consistent with a compute-focused accelerator that lacks a rasterization pipeline. It also reports no RT cores and no tensor cores, and its API fields are all N/A. The RTX 4060 Max-Q reports 48 ROPs, 70.56 GPixel/s pixel rate, 24 RT cores, 96 tensor cores, and full API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the AMD part is an OAM module with a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The MI325X uses HBM3e with a 1500 MHz clock and 6 Gbps effective speed, achieving 6.14 TB/s over an 8192-bit bus. The RTX 4060 Max-Q uses GDDR6 with a 2000 MHz clock and 16 Gbps effective speed, achieving 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The MI325X's memory clock is lower, but the bus width is 64 times larger, which is why its bandwidth is 24 times higher.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded field. The MI325X has 19456 shading units, 1216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs; the RTX 4060 Max-Q has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The MI325X boosts to 2100 MHz from a 1000 MHz base; the RTX 4060 Max-Q boosts to 1470 MHz from a 1140 MHz base. The MI325X has no RT cores or tensor cores; the RTX 4060 Max-Q has 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores.

Memory capacity is 256 GB versus 8 GB, type is HBM3e versus GDDR6, bus width is 8192 bit versus 128 bit, and bandwidth is 6.14 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W; the RTX 4060 Max-Q has a 35 W TDP and no suggested PSU. Slot width is OAM Module for the MI325X and IGP for the RTX 4060 Max-Q. The MI325X has no display outputs; the RTX 4060 Max-Q's outputs are portable-device dependent. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX 4060 Max-Q. The MI325X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support; the RTX 4060 Max-Q supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ by roughly nine months: the MI325X launched on 2024-10-09, and the RTX 4060 Max-Q launched on 2023-01-02. Production status is unrecorded for the MI325X and Active for the RTX 4060 Max-Q.