AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X and NVIDIA N1 16SM serve fundamentally different segments, and their strengths are almost entirely determined by their design goals rather than overlapping performance tiers. The MI325X is an accelerator built for sustained compute throughput, while the N1 16SM is an integrated graphics processor designed for system-level integration.

The MI325X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS dwarfs the N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS, a factor of roughly 8.5x. FP16 performance is identical to FP32 on both parts (1:1 ratio), so the MI325X also leads there by the same margin. Texture rate tells a similar story: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s, an 8.5x advantage for the AMD part. These are not close contests; the MI325X is in a different computational class entirely.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also strongly favor the MI325X. The AMD accelerator carries 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s. The N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, producing 273.2 GB/s. The bandwidth gap is approximately 22.5x in favor of the MI325X, while capacity is double. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large model inference or training datasets, this difference is decisive.

The N1 16SM wins in areas relevant to client or edge integration. It has display outputs (1x HDMI), while the MI325X has no outputs at all. The N1 16SM also has dedicated RT cores (16) and tensor cores (64), which the MI325X does not expose in the recorded data. Pixel rate on the N1 16SM is 56.30 GPixel/s, while the MI325X is recorded at 0 MPixel/s, indicating the AMD part is not designed for rasterization output. The N1 16SM is also an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor, whereas the MI325X ships as an OAM Module, a board-level accelerator form factor.

The MI325X wins on process integration density in one specific metric: transistor density of 150.4M per mm² on a 1017 mm² die with 153,000 million transistors. The N1 16SM has a 382 mm² die but its transistor count is listed as unknown, so no density comparison is possible. The MI325X also has a much higher boost clock at 2100 MHz versus 2346 MHz for the N1, though the AMD part's base clock is higher at 1000 MHz versus 741 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The two chips are built on entirely different architectural lineages. The MI325X uses CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip called Aqua Vanjaram, while the N1 16SM uses Blackwell 2.0 on a chip called GB20B. Both are manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, which is a point of commonality, but the similarity ends there.

The MI325X is a massive compute accelerator. Its die size is 1017 mm², nearly three times the N1 16SM's 382 mm². The transistor count of 153,000 million on the MI325X is a defining characteristic; the N1 16SM's transistor count is unknown. The AMD part deploys 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and no ROPs. The N1 16SM has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The presence of ROPs on the NVIDIA part, combined with its pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s, indicates a graphics-capable pipeline, which the MI325X lacks entirely.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The MI325X uses HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus, a configuration optimized for maximum bandwidth. The N1 16SM uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus, a configuration optimized for system integration and lower power. The MI325X's memory clock is listed at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the N1 16SM runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. The effective data rate is higher on the NVIDIA part, but the bus width difference overwhelms that, resulting in the 22.5x bandwidth advantage for the AMD accelerator.

Feature sets also differ. The N1 16SM includes 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, indicating support for ray tracing acceleration and tensor operations. The MI325X lists neither RT cores nor tensor cores in the recorded data, though its FP16 throughput at 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1 with FP32) suggests it relies on massive shader array parallelism rather than dedicated tensor hardware. The MI325X has no display outputs, while the N1 16SM has one HDMI output. Both parts list DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, so neither is positioned as a general-purpose graphics API target.

Power and integration also differ. The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU, with no power connectors on the OAM module itself. The N1 16SM's TDP is unknown, and it has no suggested PSU listed, consistent with an IGP that draws power from its host platform. The MI325X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, as does the N1 16SM, so interface generation is not a differentiator.

Release timing shows the N1 16SM is a later product, dated 2026-05-31, while the MI325X launched 2024-10-09. The N1 16SM's production status is listed as Active; the MI325X's production status is not recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to two different purchasing decisions, not a head-to-head competition. The AMD Instinct MI325X is for compute environments where massive FP32/FP16 throughput, enormous memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth are the primary requirements. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, 256 GB HBM3e, and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth position it for server accelerators, AI training, and scientific computing workloads. The absence of display outputs, ROPs, and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s confirms it is not intended for any graphics output role.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM is for systems that need integrated graphics with compute capability. Its 2,048 shading units, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores provide a balanced feature set for a chip that also outputs video through its single HDMI port. The 128 GB LPDDR5X capacity is substantial for an IGP, and the 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, while far below the MI325X, is appropriate for a 256-bit memory bus integrated into a system-on-chip design.

Any choice between these two depends entirely on the application class. For a server node processing large models or rendering compute workloads off-screen, the MI325X is the only option that matches the requirements. For a client system or edge device that needs graphics output alongside moderate compute, the N1 16SM is the appropriate part. There is no overlap in their design targets, and the benchmark data reflects that separation rather than a performance rivalry.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS FP32. The MI325X is approximately 8.5x faster in this metric.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 16SM support graphics output?

A: Yes. The N1 16SM has 1x HDMI display output and a pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The MI325X provides 6.14 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3e bus, while the N1 16SM provides 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus. The MI325X has roughly 22.5x the bandwidth.

Q: Which chip has tensor and ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists 64 tensor cores and 16 RT cores. The AMD Instinct MI325X lists neither tensor cores nor RT cores in the recorded data.

Q: What are the die sizes?

A: The MI325X has a 1017 mm² die with 153,000 million transistors, while the N1 16SM has a 382 mm² die with an unknown transistor count.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and both parts have an average benchmark score of 0 with a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs. No direct benchmark scores are available for a comparative performance analysis. However, the specification data provides clear quantitative deltas that function as proxy benchmarks for capability.

The most significant gap is memory bandwidth. The MI325X's 6.14 TB/s versus the N1 16SM's 273.2 GB/s represents a 22.5x difference. This is the largest relative advantage in either direction. For any workload that streams data, such as large language model inference or high-resolution tensor operations, this bandwidth differential will dominate performance outcomes. The MI325X's 8192-bit bus is an order of magnitude wider than the N1 16SM's 256-bit bus.

Compute throughput is the second major differentiator. The MI325X's FP32 of 81.72 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS for the N1 16SM yields an 8.5x advantage. FP16 follows the same pattern, with both parts running at 1:1 with their FP32 rates, so the MI325X again leads by 8.5x. Texture rate mirrors this: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s. These metrics indicate that the MI325X can process shader and compute workloads at a rate the N1 16SM cannot approach.

The N1 16SM wins in areas where the MI325X is not designed to compete. Pixel rate is 56.30 GPixel/s on the NVIDIA part versus 0 MPixel/s on the AMD part, a complete victory for graphics output capability. The presence of 1x HDMI output versus no outputs on the MI325X reinforces this. The N1 16SM also has dedicated RT and tensor cores, which the MI325X lacks, meaning ray tracing and tensor-specific workloads have hardware acceleration only on the NVIDIA part.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The MI325X has a higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 741 MHz, but the N1 16SM has a higher boost clock at 2346 MHz versus 2100 MHz. The effective memory data rate is higher on the N1 16SM at 8.5 Gbps effective versus 6 Gbps effective on the MI325X, though the bus width advantage of the AMD part renders this irrelevant for total bandwidth.

Memory capacity gives the MI325X a 2x advantage at 256 GB versus 128 GB. This matters for workloads that require large model residency without host memory paging. The N1 16SM's capacity is still substantial for an integrated part, but it is half the AMD accelerator's capacity.

The MI325X's transistor density of 150.4M per mm² is a recorded metric that reflects the packing of 153,000 million transistors onto the 1017 mm² die. The N1 16SM's transistor density is not recorded, so no comparison is possible, but its die size of 382 mm² with unknown transistor count leaves the density question open.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification. The following list covers only the fields where the values diverge.

• Manufacturer: AMD versus NVIDIA.
• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram versus GB20B.
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 versus Blackwell 2.0.
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Blackwell IGP (N1x).
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus unknown.
• Die Size: 1017 mm² versus 382 mm².
• Transistor Density: 150.4M per mm² versus not recorded.
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz versus 741 MHz.
• Boost Clock: 2100 MHz versus 2346 MHz.
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz 6 Gbps effective versus 1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective.
• Memory Size: 256 GB versus 128 GB.
• Memory Type: HBM3e versus LPDDR5X.
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit versus 256 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.
• Shading Units: 19,456 versus 2,048.
• TMUs: 1,216 versus 128.
• ROPs: 0 versus 24.
• RT Cores: not listed versus 16.
• Tensor Cores: not listed versus 64.
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS.
• FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: 1000 W versus unknown.
• Slot Width: OAM Module versus IGP.
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus not listed.
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus 1x HDMI.
• Release Date: 2024-10-09 versus 2026-05-31.
• Production Status: not recorded versus Active.
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus not listed.

Fields that match include the 5 nm process node, TSMC foundry, PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, no power connectors, and no recorded dimensions. The launch MSRP is not recorded for either part.