AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a stark asymmetry between these two accelerators. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no benchmark entries in the database, registering an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, by contrast, carries two recorded benchmark results: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 124,812 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 109,364. Its average benchmark score is 117,088, placing it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs.

Because the AMD part has no measured scores, direct numerical comparison is impossible. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation does have a nearest rival comparison frame. Its average score sits 0.3% below the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393), 1.6% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118,976), 2.4% above the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395), and 2.8% above the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944). These deltas confirm that the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation clusters tightly with other mid-tier workstation accelerators. The MI325X cannot be placed in this ranking because the database contains no benchmark output for it.

The wins tally reflects this imbalance: zero wins for the AMD Instinct MI325X and zero wins for the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation in head-to-head tests, since no shared benchmark exists. The only meaningful numerical conclusion is that the NVIDIA card produces measurable compute results across two API tests, while the AMD card has no recorded results in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two chips diverge sharply in design intent. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 153,000 million transistors onto a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip on Ada Lovelace architecture, also fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. Its transistor density is 121.8 million transistors per square millimeter.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The MI325X fields 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. It has no listed RT cores and no listed tensor cores. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation ships with 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The AMD part reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part reports a pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 299.5 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 280.0 GB/s. The AMD card runs a base clock of 1000 MHz, a boost clock of 2100 MHz, and a memory clock of 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective transfer. The NVIDIA card runs a base clock of 720 MHz, a boost clock of 1560 MHz, and a memory clock of 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective transfer.

Floating-point throughput follows the same split. The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation delivers 19.17 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The AMD card is roughly 4.3 times higher in FP32 and FP16 throughput on paper, but this comes with a 1000 W TDP versus 70 W for the NVIDIA card.

API support diverges completely. The MI325X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display output also differs: the AMD card has no outputs, while the NVIDIA card provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Physical and platform characteristics separate the two further. The MI325X is an OAM module with no power connectors, a suggested 1400 W PSU, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is a dual-slot card with no power connectors, a suggested 250 W PSU, and a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface. Its dimensions are 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height.

Release timing differs by roughly 19 months. The MI325X launched on 2024-10-09, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation launched on 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA card is listed as active in production status, with its predecessor as Workstation Ampere and successor as Blackwell PRO W. The MI325X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor and no successor.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the only one of the two with measurable benchmark results. Its average score of 117,088 and 95th percentile ranking demonstrate that it competes directly with the NVIDIA GB10, AMD Radeon PRO W7700, NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile. The MI325X has no recorded scores, no percentile ranking above the baseline 50, and no rival comparisons. Any selection decision based on the database must favor the NVIDIA card if measured performance is the criterion.

The AMD card does present a different profile: 256 GB of HBM3e, 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth, 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and a CDNA 3.0 architecture with no graphics API support and no display outputs. It is clearly a compute-only accelerator. The NVIDIA card offers graphics API support, display outputs, RT cores, tensor cores, and a much lower 70 W TDP. These are complementary designs, not interchangeable products.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI325X | NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 35,800 million |

| Die size | 1017 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor density | 150.4M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 720 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2100 MHz | 1560 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 256 GB | 20 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus | 8192 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 6.14 TB/s | 280.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 19,456 | 6,144 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 192 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| RT cores | None listed | 48 |

| Tensor cores | None listed | 192 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 99.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 299.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 70 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release date | 2024-10-09 | 2023-03-20 |

| Production status | Not listed | Active |

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation delivers 19.17 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI325X support DirectX?

A: No. The database lists DirectX support as N/A for the MI325X. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI325X drive displays?

A: No. It has no display outputs. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The MI325X provides 6.14 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3e interface, whereas the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation provides 280.0 GB/s over a 160-bit GDDR6 interface.

Q: What are the benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI325X?

A: The database contains no benchmark entries for the MI325X. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile ranking is 50. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 124,812 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 109,364.

Q: How does the NVIDIA card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average score of 117,088 is 0.3% below the NVIDIA GB10, 1.6% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7700, 2.4% above the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and 2.8% above the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins in every category where the database records measurable output. It has benchmark scores in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card lists N/A for all three. It provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. It has RT cores and tensor cores, which the AMD card does not list. It operates at a 70 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU, versus 1000 W and 1400 W for the AMD card. It also carries a lower transistor count and smaller die, which correlates with its lower power envelope.

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins on raw memory and throughput specifications. It offers 256 GB of HBM3e versus 20 GB of GDDR6. Its 6.14 TB/s bandwidth is more than 20 times the NVIDIA card's 280.0 GB/s. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is roughly 4.3 times the NVIDIA card's 19.17 TFLOPS. It has more shading units (19,456 versus 6,144), more TMUs (1,216 versus 192), a higher texture rate (2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s), and a higher boost clock (2100 MHz versus 1560 MHz). Its memory bus width of 8192 bits dwarfs the NVIDIA card's 160-bit interface.

The use-case split follows these numbers directly. For workloads that require measured graphics API performance, display output, ray tracing resources, or low power draw, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the only option with supporting data. For workloads that require maximum memory capacity, maximum memory bandwidth, or maximum FP32/FP16 throughput in a compute-only form factor, the AMD Instinct MI325X presents the stronger specification sheet, though the database contains no benchmark confirmation of its real-world performance.