AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Instinct MI350P and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X?

A: The MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the MI308X uses CDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm TSMC process. The MI350P has 8,192 shading units, while the MI308X has 19,456 shading units.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e memory with a bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s, while the MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a bandwidth of 10.3 TB/s. Both use an 8192-bit memory bus.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput?

A: The MI308X delivers substantially higher raw compute: 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 versus 36.04 TFLOPS for the MI350P. For FP16, the MI308X reaches 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1 ratio), while the MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W with a suggested PSU of 1000 W and a single 16-pin power connector. The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W and no power connectors (it is an OAM module).

Q: When were these products released?

A: The MI308X was released on December 5, 2023. The MI350P has a release date of May 6, 2026.

Q: Do either of these cards support display outputs?

A: No, both the MI350P and the MI308X have no display outputs, as they are designed for compute workloads, not graphics rendering.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two accelerators into different roles. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X is the compute-heavy option, with more than double the FP32 throughput (81.72 TFLOPS versus 36.04 TFLOPS) and nearly 18 times the FP16 throughput (653.7 TFLOPS versus 36.04 TFLOPS). It also offers 48 GB more memory (192 GB versus 144 GB) and higher memory bandwidth (10.3 TB/s versus 8.19 TB/s). For workloads that scale with raw FLOPs and large memory footprints, the MI308X is the clear choice.

The AMD Instinct MI350P, however, is not without merit. It uses a newer 3 nm process versus the 5 nm process of the MI308X, which contributes to a lower TDP (600 W versus 750 W). It also uses faster HBM3e memory, though with less total capacity. The MI350P is the more power-efficient option per watt for FP32 work, and its smaller transistor count (73,000 million versus 153,000 million) indicates a denser, more modern design per square millimeter (61.3M / mm² versus 150.4M / mm², though the MI308X has a higher absolute density).

For users prioritizing raw compute density and memory capacity, the MI308X wins decisively. For users prioritizing power efficiency, newer process technology, and a dual-slot form factor that fits standard server chassis, the MI350P is the more practical choice. Neither card has display outputs, so both are strictly for headless compute deployments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark data is not recorded in the database, but the specification sheets provide clear performance deltas. The biggest win for the MI308X is in FP32 compute: it delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, which is 2.27 times the 36.04 TFLOPS of the MI350P. In FP16, the gap is even more pronounced: the MI308X achieves 653.7 TFLOPS, which is 18.1 times the MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS, but this comes with a caveat. The MI308X uses an 8:1 FP16 ratio, meaning it trades precision for throughput, while the MI350P offers 1:1 FP16 ratio, indicating full-rate FP16 without the precision loss.

Memory bandwidth also favors the MI308X: 10.3 TB/s versus 8.19 TB/s, a 25.8% advantage. Texture rate follows the same pattern: the MI308X delivers 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 1,126.4 GTexel/s for the MI350P, a 2.27 times difference, matching the FP32 ratio.

The MI350P wins on clock speed and power. Its boost clock is 2200 MHz versus 2100 MHz for the MI308X, a 4.8% advantage. Its TDP is 600 W versus 750 W, making it 20% more power-efficient in terms of TDP alone. The MI350P also uses HBM3e memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus the MI308X's HBM3 at 2525 MHz (10.1 Gbps effective), but the MI308X's higher memory clock does not translate to a proportional bandwidth advantage because the bus width is identical (8192 bit).

The MI350P has a smaller die (1190 mm² versus 1017 mm²) but a lower transistor count (73,000 million versus 153,000 million). This means the MI308X packs more than twice the transistors onto a smaller die, explaining its higher compute density despite the older process node.

Specification Differences

The specifications that differ between the two cards are as follows:

• Process Node: The MI350P uses 3 nm, the MI308X uses 5 nm.
• Transistors: The MI350P has 73,000 million, the MI308X has 153,000 million.
• Die Size: The MI350P measures 1190 mm², the MI308X measures 1017 mm².
• Transistor Density: The MI350P has 61.3M / mm², the MI308X has 150.4M / mm².
• Boost Clock: The MI350P boosts to 2200 MHz, the MI308X to 2100 MHz.
• Memory Clock: The MI350P runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), the MI308X at 2525 MHz (10.1 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: The MI350P has 144 GB, the MI308X has 192 GB.
• Memory Type: The MI350P uses HBM3e, the MI308X uses HBM3.
• Memory Bandwidth: The MI350P delivers 8.19 TB/s, the MI308X delivers 10.3 TB/s.
• Shading Units: The MI350P has 8,192, the MI308X has 19,456.
• TMUs: The MI350P has 512, the MI308X has 1,216.
• Texture Rate: The MI350P achieves 1,126.4 GTexel/s, the MI308X achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS, the MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1), the MI308X delivers 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1).
• TDP: The MI350P is rated at 600 W, the MI308X at 750 W.
• Slot Width: The MI350P is Dual-slot, the MI308X is an OAM Module.
• Power Connectors: The MI350P uses 1x 16-pin, the MI308X has none.
• Suggested PSU: The MI350P recommends 1000 W, the MI308X recommends 1150 W.
• Dimensions: The MI350P is 267 mm long, 111 mm high, and 40 mm wide; the MI308X has no recorded dimensions.
• Release Date: The MI350P is dated May 6, 2026, the MI308X is dated December 5, 2023.

Both cards share a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, no display outputs, and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate (no ROPs).

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is significant. The MI350P is built on CDNA 4.0, the newest compute architecture from AMD, fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process. The MI308X uses CDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm process. The newer node on the MI350P allows for a lower TDP (600 W versus 750 W) despite a larger die (1190 mm² versus 1017 mm²), but the MI308X compensates with a much higher transistor density (150.4M / mm² versus 61.3M / mm²), achieving 153,000 million transistors versus 73,000 million.

The shading unit count is the most striking difference: the MI308X has 19,456 shading units, which is 2.38 times the 8,192 of the MI350P. This drives the MI308X's FP32 advantage. The MI350P's FP16 throughput matches its FP32 (1:1 ratio), indicating a design optimized for full-precision FP16 work, while the MI308X's FP16 is 8:1, meaning it uses a packed math approach that trades accuracy for speed.

Memory architecture also differs. The MI350P uses HBM3e, the newer memory standard, but with a lower clock (2000 MHz versus 2525 MHz) and less capacity (144 GB versus 192 GB). The MI308X's HBM3 runs faster and offers more capacity, yielding a 10.3 TB/s bandwidth versus 8.19 TB/s. Both use an 8192-bit bus, so the bandwidth difference comes entirely from memory clock and type.

The MI350P has no ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, and neither card supports DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan APIs. The MI308X also lists no API support, confirming both are pure compute accelerators.

Where Each One Wins

The MI308X wins in every raw performance category: FP32 (81.72 TFLOPS), FP16 (653.7 TFLOPS), texture rate (2,553.6 GTexel/s), memory bandwidth (10.3 TB/s), and memory capacity (192 GB). It is the choice for large-scale training, inference, and scientific simulations where memory capacity and raw FLOPs dominate. The FP16 8:1 mode is particularly useful for mixed-precision workloads that can tolerate reduced FP16 accuracy.

The MI350P wins in power efficiency (600 W versus 750 W TDP), newer process technology (3 nm versus 5 nm), and boost clock (2200 MHz versus 2100 MHz). Its 1:1 FP16 ratio is a clear advantage for workloads that require full FP16 precision without the 8:1 packed math penalty of the MI308X. The dual-slot form factor and 1x 16-pin power connector make it easier to integrate into standard server enclosures, whereas the MI308X requires an OAM module slot.

For organizations with power constraints or dense server racks, the MI350P delivers competitive FP32 performance at a 20% lower TDP. For organizations that need maximum compute density and memory capacity, the MI308X is unmatched in this comparison. The MI350P's HBM3e memory, while lower in bandwidth, uses a newer standard that may offer better latency characteristics, though this is not measured in the database.

In summary, the MI308X is the performance leader, the MI350P is the efficiency leader. The choice depends entirely on whether raw throughput or power efficiency and precision fidelity take priority.