AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X Comparison

AMD Instinct MI350X and AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X are both OAM-module accelerators built for dense compute, but the recorded data shows they are engineered around fundamentally different trade-offs. The MI350X, built on the 3 nm process with CDNA 4.0 architecture, delivers a more modern memory subsystem with 288 GB of HBM3e, while the MI300X, on 5 nm with CDNA 3.0, counters with a higher raw FP32 throughput and a significantly faster memory bandwidth of 10.3 TB/s. The database shows no benchmark scores for either part, so the analysis relies on architectural specifications and clock behavior.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI350X or the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X. The head-to-head benchmark section is therefore empty, and no direct performance measurements exist to compare. The percentile ranking for both GPUs is identical at 50, placing each in the middle of the database's distribution of all GPUs, but this percentile is based on an average benchmark score of 0 for both parts.

Without benchmark results, the comparison must be drawn from computed throughput figures. The MI300X leads in FP32 compute with 81.72 TFLOPS, while the MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS. That is a 9.63 TFLOPS advantage for the older part, roughly 13.4% higher than the MI350X in single-precision floating-point work. The FP16 comparison is more lopsided: the MI300X lists 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1 ratio), while the MI350X shows 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The MI300X therefore holds a massive FP16 throughput advantage, although the MI350X's 1:1 ratio indicates it does not rely on reduced-precision packing to reach its number.

Texture rate follows a similar pattern. The MI300X achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the MI350X records 2,252.8 GTexel/s. The MI300X leads by 300.8 GTexel/s, or approximately 13.4%. Pixel rate is a non-factor, as both parts record 0 MPixel/s with no display outputs.

Memory bandwidth is where the MI300X posts its clearest specification win. The MI300X shows 10.3 TB/s across an 8192-bit bus using HBM3, while the MI350X shows 8.19 TB/s across the same 8192-bit bus using HBM3e. The MI300X leads by 2.11 TB/s, which is roughly 25.8% more bandwidth. However, the MI350X has 96 GB additional memory capacity: 288 GB versus 192 GB, a 50% capacity advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins in scenarios that favor raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its FP32 output of 81.72 TFLOPS exceeds the MI350X's 72.09 TFLOPS, and its FP16 peak of 653.7 TFLOPS is nearly 9 times the MI350X's 72.09 TFLOPS. The 10.3 TB/s bandwidth also gives it a clear edge for workloads that stream large volumes of data through the memory subsystem, such as dense matrix operations or high-throughput inference. The MI300X also has more execution resources: 19,456 shading units against 16,384, and 1,216 TMUs against 1,024.

The AMD Instinct MI350X wins where capacity and power efficiency per module matter. Its 288 GB of HBM3e memory is 96 GB larger than the MI300X's 192 GB, allowing larger model footprints or datasets to reside on a single accelerator. The MI350X also uses a 3 nm process, which enables a higher boost clock of 2200 MHz versus 2100 MHz on the MI300X, despite a higher 1000 W TDP. The MI350X's 1:1 FP16 ratio indicates it can sustain the same throughput for FP16 and FP32, which may be preferable for workloads that require consistent precision without mixed-precision acceleration.

The MI350X also delivers a higher transistor count per unit of die area in the opposite direction of the raw numbers: the MI350X has 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, resulting in 77.7M transistors per mm², while the MI300X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, resulting in 150.4M per mm². The MI300X is denser, but the MI350X has more total transistors.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is the defining difference. The MI350X uses CDNA 4.0, manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the MI300X uses CDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The MI350X's die is 2380 mm², more than double the MI300X's 1017 mm². The MI350X packs 185,000 million transistors, while the MI300X has 153,000 million. The MI300X has a higher transistor density at 150.4M per mm², versus 77.7M per mm² for the MI350X.

Memory architecture differs by generation. The MI350X uses HBM3e with 288 GB capacity and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The MI300X uses HBM3 with 192 GB capacity and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. Both use an 8192-bit bus, and both list memory clocks that reflect their different standards: the MI350X at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, and the MI300X at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective.

Compute resource allocation differs significantly. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, while the MI350X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs. The MI350X compensates with a boost clock of 2200 MHz versus 2100 MHz, but the MI300X still produces higher FP32 throughput and texture rate. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz matching the MI300X's 1000 MHz base.

Power and cooling specifications also diverge. The MI350X lists a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The MI300X lists a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. Both are OAM modules with no power connectors and no display outputs, and both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The MI350X has dimensions of 102 mm length and 165 mm width; the MI300X has no listed dimensions.

The MI300X has a release date of December 5, 2023, while the MI350X is dated June 11, 2025. The MI300X's predecessor is listed as FirePro Data Center, while the MI350X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory capacity?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory, which is 96 GB more than the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X's 192 GB of HBM3.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Instinct MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X has 10.3 TB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD Instinct MI350X has 8.19 TB/s.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X uses a 3 nm process, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X uses a 5 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X has a TDP of 750 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X has 19,456 shading units, while the AMD Instinct MI350X has 16,384 shading units.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI350X | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | CDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 185,000 million | 153,000 million |

| Die Size | 2380 mm² | 1017 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 77.7M / mm² | 150.4M / mm² |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 2100 MHz |

| Memory Size | 288 GB | 192 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | HBM3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 10.3 TB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 2525 MHz, 10.1 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 16384 | 19456 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 1216 |

| FP32 | 72.09 TFLOPS | 81.72 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) | 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) |

| Texture Rate | 2,252.8 GTexel/s | 2,553.6 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 1000 W | 750 W |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 1150 W |

| Release Date | 2025-06-11 | 2023-12-05 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | FirePro Data Center |

| Dimensions | 102 mm length, 165 mm width | Not listed |

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X is the stronger part for raw compute throughput. The data shows it leads in FP32 (81.72 TFLOPS), FP16 (653.7 TFLOPS), texture rate (2,553.6 GTexel/s), and memory bandwidth (10.3 TB/s). It also has more shading units and TMUs and a lower TDP of 750 W. These specifications position it as the better choice for workloads that are bound by arithmetic rate and data movement speed.

The AMD Instinct MI350X is the stronger part for capacity and process efficiency. It offers 288 GB of HBM3e memory, which is 50% more than the MI300X, and it uses a newer 3 nm process. The MI350X also has a higher boost clock of 2200 MHz and a larger total transistor count of 185,000 million. Its 1:1 FP16 ratio means it does not rely on packed math to reach its FP16 figure, which may matter for precision-sensitive workloads.

The database does not list benchmark scores for either GPU, so there is no measured performance data to confirm how these specifications translate into real-world results. The recorded specifications show a clear split: the MI300X for bandwidth and raw throughput, the MI350X for memory capacity and modern process node. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP in the database, and both are OAM modules with no display outputs. The choice between them should follow the workload's dominant constraint: capacity or throughput.