AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA Jetson T4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identities of the AMD Instinct MI325X and the NVIDIA Jetson T4000?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 uses the GB10B chip with Blackwell architecture, also on a 5 nm TSMC process, with a 391 mm² die and transistor count listed as unknown.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between the two accelerators?

A: The Instinct MI325X carries 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192 bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Jetson T4000 carries 64 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s. The bandwidth ratio is substantial, with the AMD part offering over 22 times the memory throughput.

Q: What are the power requirements for each device?

A: The Instinct MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Jetson T4000 has a TDP of 90 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The AMD accelerator consumes over 11 times the power budget of the NVIDIA module.

Q: Do either of these products support display outputs or standard graphics APIs?

A: Neither device has display outputs. Both list DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, confirming they are compute-oriented accelerators without any graphics rendering path.

Q: What are the release timelines for these products?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has a release date of 2024-10-09. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 has a release date of 2026-01-04, placing it in a later product cycle.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The Instinct MI325X contains 19,456 shading units, while the Jetson T4000 contains 1,536. The AMD part has roughly 12.7 times the shading unit count, which directly informs its much higher FP32 throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a complete split between raw compute throughput and power-efficient inference. The AMD Instinct MI325X is the clear winner in raw parallel processing. Its FP32 output of 81.72 TFLOPS dwarfs the 4.700 TFLOPS of the Jetson T4000, a factor of roughly 17.4. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with the MI325X delivering 2,553.6 GTexel/s against 73.44 GTexel/s for the Jetson T4000. Any workload dominated by dense linear algebra, large batch inference, or memory-bandwidth-bound operations will favor the MI325X, especially given the 6.14 TB/s memory bandwidth versus 273.2 GB/s.

The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 wins in the embedded and edge inference space. Its 90 W TDP is a fraction of the 1000 W TDP of the MI325X, and it is the only one of the two with a physical form factor suited to compact integration: 87 mm by 100 mm by 15 mm, listed as an IGP. The MI325X is an OAM module with no dimensions given and no power connectors, indicating it requires a carrier chassis with high-current delivery. The Jetson T4000 also inherits Blackwell-specific features, including 12 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, which the MI325X does not list at all. For single-stream inference, modest batch workloads, or deployment where the 250 W suggested PSU is the ceiling, the Jetson T4000 is the only viable option between the two.

The pixel rate also splits cleanly. The MI325X reports 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the Jetson T4000 reports 24.48 GPixel/s with 16 ROPs. That makes the NVIDIA part the only one capable of any rasterization, even if its primary purpose is compute.

Architecture Differences

The MI325X uses CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-focused architecture, built around a massive 1017 mm² die with 153,000 million transistors. The Jetson T4000 uses NVIDIA's Blackwell architecture on a 391 mm² die, with transistor count unknown. The MI325X has no ROPs, no RT cores, and no tensor cores listed; the Jetson T4000 has 16 ROPs, 12 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. This difference indicates that NVIDIA's Blackwell design carries dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware, while AMD's CDNA 3.0 part is purely a streaming multiprocessor-style compute array.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The MI325X uses HBM3e with an 8192 bit interface, which is typical for accelerator-class silicon designed to feed thousands of compute units. The Jetson T4000 uses LPDDR5X with a 256 bit interface, a much narrower and lower-power memory subsystem. The transistor density also differs: the MI325X shows 150.4M transistors per mm², while the Jetson T4000 has no density figure listed, though the smaller die with unknown transistor count suggests a less dense or differently organized layout.

Clock behavior differs as well. The MI325X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz, a 1100 MHz boost range. The Jetson T4000 has a fixed clock of 1530 MHz for both base and boost, meaning no dynamic range. The MI325X memory clock is 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Jetson T4000 memory runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. The higher effective data rate per pin on the NVIDIA part does not compensate for the vastly narrower bus.

The MI325X is a PCIe 5.0 x16 device; the Jetson T4000 is PCIe 5.0 x8. Both are compute-only with no display outputs. The MI325X has no power connectors, consistent with an OAM module that receives power through the carrier board. The Jetson T4000 also has no power connectors, consistent with an IGP-style module that draws power through its socket.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows the MI325X leading in nearly every absolute compute metric. It has 19,456 shading units versus 1,536, 1,216 TMUs versus 48, and 0 ROPs versus 16. FP32 is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 4.700 TFLOPS. FP16 is also 81.72 TFLOPS for both, since the MI325X runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio and the Jetson T4000 also lists FP16 at 4.700 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 73.44 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 24.48 GPixel/s.

Memory capacity is 256 GB versus 64 GB. Memory type is HBM3e versus LPDDR5X. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth is 6.14 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s. The MI325X base clock is 1000 MHz versus 1530 MHz; boost clock is 2100 MHz versus 1530 MHz.

Physical and power figures differ sharply. TDP is 1000 W versus 90 W. Suggested PSU is 1400 W versus 250 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus IGP. The Jetson T4000 is the only one with listed dimensions: 87 mm length, 100 mm height, 15 mm width. The MI325X has no listed dimensions.

Release timing differs. The MI325X released on 2024-10-09. The Jetson T4000 releases on 2026-01-04. The Jetson T4000 has a production status of Active and a launch MSRP of 1,999 USD. The MI325X has no launch MSRP listed. The Jetson T4000 lists a predecessor (Server Hopper) and successor (Server Rubin); the MI325X lists a predecessor (Radeon Instinct) but no successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database has no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two devices, so the comparison relies on recorded specification-level measurements. The largest win for the AMD Instinct MI325X is in FP32 throughput. At 81.72 TFLOPS, it is 17.4 times the 4.700 TFLOPS of the Jetson T4000. That gap is the defining feature of this comparison: one device is built for massive parallel compute, the other for power-constrained inference.

The second major win is memory bandwidth. The MI325X delivers 6.14 TB/s, which is 22.5 times the 273.2 GB/s of the Jetson T4000. This is not just a capacity difference; the 8192 bit bus versus 256 bit bus means the MI325X can feed its 19,456 shading units without stalling, while the Jetson T4000 must operate within a much tighter memory budget.

Texture rate is another decisive gap. The MI325X reports 2,553.6 GTexel/s, which is 34.8 times the 73.44 GTexel/s of the Jetson T4000. The MI325X also has 1,216 TMUs versus 48, so the per-TMU rate is roughly consistent with the clock difference, but the sheer unit count drives the aggregate result.

The Jetson T4000 wins in areas where the MI325X has no presence. Pixel rate is 24.48 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s, because the MI325X has no ROPs. The Jetson T4000 also has 12 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, while the MI325X lists none. For any workload that uses tensor cores or ray tracing hardware, the NVIDIA part is the only one with the required silicon.

Power efficiency is the clearest practical win for the Jetson T4000. At 90 W TDP, it delivers 4.700 TFLOPS, which is roughly 52.2 GFLOPS per watt. The MI325X at 1000 W delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, which is 81.7 GFLOPS per watt. The AMD part is actually more efficient in raw FP32 per watt, but the Jetson T4000 fits into systems where a 1000 W module is physically impossible. The 250 W suggested PSU for the Jetson T4000 versus 1400 W for the MI325X reflects that deployment reality.

Clock behavior also differentiates the two. The Jetson T4000 runs at a constant 1530 MHz, so performance is predictable and thermal behavior is stable. The MI325X ramps from 1000 MHz to 2100 MHz, which means its 81.72 TFLOPS figure is attainable only at boost, and sustaining that requires the full 1000 W power envelope.

The release date gap matters for platform planning. The MI325X launched 2024-10-09, while the Jetson T4000 launches 2026-01-04. The NVIDIA part carries a production status of Active and a launch MSRP of 1,999 USD. The MI325X has no MSRP and no production status in the database. The Jetson T4000 also has a defined successor, Server Rubin, while the MI325X has none listed, indicating it may be a terminal product in its line.

The Jetson T4000 shows a transistor density that is not recorded, but its 391 mm² die with 64 GB of LPDDR5X and 1536 shading units indicates a design balanced for integration rather than peak throughput. The MI325X with 153,000 million transistors on 1017 mm² shows a density of 150.4M per mm², a figure that reflects a mature 5 nm process pushed toward compute density rather than power efficiency.

In summary of the recorded data, the MI325X is the performance leader in every absolute compute metric except those that require hardware it does not include. The Jetson T4000 is the only one of the two with rasterization support, fixed clocks, a defined physical footprint, and a sub-100 W power profile. The choice between them is dictated entirely by the deployment environment and the workload's tolerance for power draw.