AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER?

A: The MI325X uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm process with 153,000 million transistors and a 1017 mm² die. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses NVIDIA's Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB203 chip, also on 5 nm, but with 45,600 million transistors and a 378 mm² die.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI325X features 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 1.02 TB/s. The MI325X has roughly six times the memory capacity and six times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The RTX 5080 SUPER delivers 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 and 56.28 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The MI325X leads by about 45% in both precision formats.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU, while the RTX 5080 SUPER has a TDP of 415 W. The MI325X consumes more than double the power of the RTX 5080 SUPER.

Q: What is the RTX 5080 SUPER's benchmark score and how does it rank?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER has a single recorded benchmark score of 3075 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 19. The nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro P1000, scores 3163, which is 2.8% higher, while the Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3182, which is 3.4% higher.

Q: Does the MI325X have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The MI325X has no recorded benchmarks, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 50.

Architecture Differences

The MI325X and RTX 5080 SUPER diverge sharply in design goals. The MI325X is a compute-oriented accelerator built on CDNA 3.0, with 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units. It has no ROPs, no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and no display outputs. The pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, confirming it is not intended for rasterized graphics output. The texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s.

The RTX 5080 SUPER is a graphics card built on Blackwell 2.0, with 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 84 ray tracing cores, and 336 tensor cores. It has a pixel rate of 293.1 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 879.3 GTexel/s. The RTX 5080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI325X lists N/A for all graphics APIs.

The memory architecture reflects different workloads. The MI325X uses HBM3e with 256 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses GDDR7 with 24 GB, a 256-bit bus, and 1.02 TB/s. Clock behavior also differs: the MI325X has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the RTX 5080 SUPER runs at 2295 MHz base and 2617 MHz boost. Effective memory speed is 6 Gbps on the MI325X versus 32 Gbps on the RTX 5080 SUPER.

Physical design separates them further. The MI325X is an OAM module with no power connectors and no display outputs. The RTX 5080 SUPER is a dual-slot card with 1x 16-pin power connector, 1x HDMI 2.1b, and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. Dimensions for the RTX 5080 SUPER are 304 mm length, 137 mm height, and 40 mm width. The MI325X has no recorded dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between these two products. The wins count is 0 for both the MI325X and the RTX 5080 SUPER. Direct comparison via benchmark scores is therefore impossible from recorded data.

The RTX 5080 SUPER does have one standalone benchmark score: 3075 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The database places this score at the 19th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 at 3163 (2.8% higher), the Intel Arc Pro B60 at 3182 (3.4% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce 820A at 2983 (3.1% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M at 2967 (3.6% lower). This places the RTX 5080 SUPER in a narrow band: it trails the two stronger rivals by roughly 3% and leads the two weaker rivals by roughly 3%.

The MI325X has no benchmark entries, no average score, and no nearest rivals. Its percentile of 50 in the database is a placeholder rather than a measured ranking. Any comparison of measured performance between these two cards must rely on architectural specifications rather than benchmark outcomes, since the MI325X has no recorded test results.

Given the specification gap, the FP32 throughput difference is the clearest measured distinction. The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS against 56.28 TFLOPS for the RTX 5080 SUPER, a lead of 25.44 TFLOPS for the AMD part. The FP16 figures match the FP32 figures on both cards at a 1:1 ratio, so the same 45% advantage applies in half-precision workloads. The MI325X also holds a wide lead in texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 879.3 GTexel/s.

The reverse direction shows the RTX 5080 SUPER's advantages. It has a substantially higher boost clock (2617 MHz versus 2100 MHz), a higher base clock (2295 MHz versus 1000 MHz), and a far higher memory clock (2000 MHz versus 1500 MHz). Effective memory speed on the RTX 5080 SUPER is 32 Gbps versus 6 Gbps on the MI325X, though the MI325X compensates with a much wider memory bus. The RTX 5080 SUPER also has display outputs and graphics API support, which the MI325X lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The data indicates two different products for two different task profiles. The MI325X is built for memory-heavy compute work: 256 GB of HBM3e, 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32/FP16 throughput. It has no graphics outputs, no graphics APIs, and no ROPs. It consumes 1000 W and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. This is a server accelerator, not a desktop graphics card.

The RTX 5080 SUPER is a conventional high-end graphics card. It has 24 GB of GDDR7, 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth, 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32/FP16, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, a full graphics API stack, and display outputs. It draws 415 W and fits in a dual-slot form factor. Its benchmark score of 3075 places it near the 19th percentile in the database, with rivals within roughly 3.6% in either direction.

For compute tasks that fit within the MI325X's architecture and power envelope, the specification sheet shows a clear throughput and capacity advantage. For graphics rendering, display output, and software ecosystems built around DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, the RTX 5080 SUPER is the only option of the two, since the MI325X does not support those APIs. The launch MSRP of the RTX 5080 SUPER is 999 USD.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded field. The MI325X uses 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the RTX 5080 SUPER uses 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI325X and 120.6M per mm² for the RTX 5080 SUPER.

Shading units: 19,456 on the MI325X versus 10,752 on the RTX 5080 SUPER. TMUs: 1,216 versus 336. ROPs: 0 versus 112. Ray tracing cores: absent on the MI325X, 84 on the RTX 5080 SUPER. Tensor cores: absent on the MI325X, 336 on the RTX 5080 SUPER.

Memory: 256 GB HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth versus 24 GB GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus with 1.02 TB/s. Memory clock: 1500 MHz on the MI325X versus 2000 MHz on the RTX 5080 SUPER. Effective memory speed: 6 Gbps versus 32 Gbps.

Clocks: base 1000 MHz versus 2295 MHz, boost 2100 MHz versus 2617 MHz. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 293.1 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 879.3 GTexel/s.

Power: TDP 1000 W versus 415 W. Suggested PSU: 1400 W on the MI325X, none listed for the RTX 5080 SUPER. Form factor: OAM Module versus Dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus 1x 16-pin. Display outputs: none versus 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b.

APIs: the MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The RTX 5080 SUPER lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates: October 9, 2024 for the MI325X and December 31, 2025 for the RTX 5080 SUPER. Production status is active for the RTX 5080 SUPER and not listed for the MI325X.

Where Each One Wins

The MI325X wins in raw compute throughput. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures exceed the RTX 5080 SUPER's 56.28 TFLOPS by a wide margin. It wins in memory capacity and bandwidth: 256 GB versus 24 GB, and 6.14 TB/s versus 1.02 TB/s. It wins in texture rate at 2,553.6 GTexel/s. These specifications point to workloads that demand large model residency and high memory bandwidth, such as large-scale inference or training data processing, where the 8192-bit HBM3e interface provides a decisive advantage.

The RTX 5080 SUPER wins in graphics capability. It has 112 ROPs, 84 ray tracing cores, 336 tensor cores, and full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has display outputs and a pixel rate of 293.1 GPixel/s. The MI325X has none of these. The RTX 5080 SUPER also wins on clock speeds: 2295 MHz base and 2617 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz and 2100 MHz. Its power draw of 415 W is less than half of the MI325X's 1000 W, and it requires no suggested PSU rating in the database.

In the benchmark record, the RTX 5080 SUPER has a measurable score of 3075, which positions it near the 19th percentile among all GPUs and within 3.6% of four nearby rivals. The MI325X has no benchmark presence, so measured performance cannot be attributed to it.

The practical split is clear: the MI325X is for compute-heavy, memory-bound tasks without display or graphics API requirements, while the RTX 5080 SUPER is for graphics rendering, ray tracing, and software that relies on DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. Each card leads in the domain its architecture was designed to serve.