AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between the AMD Instinct MI350X and the AMD Radeon RX 7700. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counters for both parts are zero. This means every comparison below must be drawn from the individually recorded specifications and the RX 7700's own benchmark results, rather than from side-by-side test data.

The RX 7700 has a full benchmark profile. Its average benchmark score is 15,852, placing it in the 58th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals bracket it tightly: the AMD Radeon R9 370X sits 0.1% below with a score of 15,862, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 sits 1% below with 16,014, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 sits 1.1% above with 15,679, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti sits 1.7% below with 16,129. The spread is remarkably narrow, indicating that the RX 7700's measured performance falls into a dense cluster of similar-class parts.

The RX 7700's individual benchmark scores show a clear pattern. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it records 2,865. In Geekbench OpenCL, it reaches 106,028. PassMark results are mixed across API levels: DirectX 9 scores 261, DirectX 10 scores 92, DirectX 11 scores 186, DirectX 12 scores 96, G2D scores 1,206, G3D scores 20,974, and GPU Compute scores 10,963. The G3D score of 20,974 is the standout, roughly double the GPU Compute score and far above the individual API tests, suggesting the aggregate G3D metric captures a broader workload mix than any single DirectX version test.

The MI350X has no recorded benchmark scores, no average score, and no percentile rank beyond its 50th percentile placeholder with a zero score. It also has no nearest rivals listed. Consequently, the database cannot confirm how the MI350X performs in any standard gaming or compute benchmark. Its specifications, however, reveal an entirely different design intent.

The FP32 throughput figures illustrate the divide. The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the RX 7700 delivers 25.18 TFLOPS. That is roughly 2.86 times the raw floating-point throughput on paper. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: the MI350X reaches 2,252.8 GTexel/s, while the RX 7700 reaches 393.4 GTexel/s, a difference of about 5.7 times. Pixel rate is the inverse: the MI350X records 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the RX 7700 records 236.1 GPixel/s from its 96 ROPs.

Memory bandwidth is where the gap becomes extreme. The MI350X has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth across an 8192-bit bus with 288 GB of HBM3e. The RX 7700 has 624.1 GB/s across a 256-bit bus with 16 GB of GDDR6. The MI350X's bandwidth is roughly 13.1 times higher, and its capacity is 18 times larger. Clock speeds tell a different story: the RX 7700 boosts to 2,459 MHz with a base of 1,900 MHz, while the MI350X boosts to 2,200 MHz with a base of 1,000 MHz. The gaming card runs faster per clock, but the accelerator has vastly more execution units.

The Verdict

The data shows two products built for separate purposes with no benchmark overlap to judge them against each other. The RX 7700 is a Radeon RX 7000 series graphics card with a complete API stack, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, plus display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C. It has a 200 W TDP, dual-slot cooling, and 2x 8-pin power connectors. Its benchmark profile is fully populated, and its nearest rivals confirm it lands in a competitive mid-range segment.

The MI350X is an Instinct-series accelerator with no display outputs, no ROPs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, a 1000 W TDP, an OAM module form factor, and no power connectors because it draws power through the module interface. It has no benchmark records in the database. Its 288 GB of HBM3e and 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth target memory-bound compute workloads, not rasterization or rendering. The 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 figure and the 1:1 FP16 ratio indicate a compute-oriented design where precision scaling is straightforward.

Users choosing between these parts should base the decision on workload type. The RX 7700 is the only one of the two with any recorded gaming or graphics benchmark results, and it carries the full API support required for consumer applications. The MI350X is the only one with the memory capacity, bandwidth, and compute density for large-scale data processing, but the database contains no measured performance to confirm its real-world speed. The 50th percentile placeholder with a zero score is not a performance measurement; it is an absence of data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: Only the RX 7700 has a recorded average benchmark score: 15,852. The MI350X has no benchmark entries, so no score exists for comparison.

Q: How does the RX 7700 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7700 sits within a tight cluster. The AMD Radeon R9 370X is 0.1% lower, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 is 1% lower, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is 1.1% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti is 1.7% lower.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI350X has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, while the RX 7700 has 624.1 GB/s. The MI350X's bandwidth is approximately 13.1 times higher.

Q: Can the MI350X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI350X has no display outputs, while the RX 7700 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The RX 7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory size difference?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e, while the RX 7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6. The MI350X's capacity is 18 times larger.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ on nearly every measurable specification. The MI350X uses a 3 nm process node, while the RX 7700 uses 5 nm. Transistor counts diverge sharply: the MI350X has 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, while the RX 7700 has 28,100 million on a 346 mm² die. Transistor density is similar, 77.7M per mm² for the MI350X versus 81.2M per mm² for the RX 7700, but the die size difference is over 6.8 times.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The MI350X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The RX 7700 runs at 1900 MHz base, 2459 MHz boost, with a 2041 MHz game clock. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective for the MI350X versus 2438 MHz with 19.5 Gbps effective for the RX 7700.

Memory configuration is fundamentally different. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus. The RX 7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 624.1 GB/s. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs but zero ROPs. The RX 7700 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores.

Power and physical design diverge completely. The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP, an OAM Module slot width, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RX 7700 has a 200 W TDP, dual-slot width, 2x 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The MI350X measures 102 mm by 165 mm, while the RX 7700 measures 267 mm by 135 mm by 50 mm. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI350X versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 7700.

Release dates are recorded for both: the MI350X on 2025-06-11 and the RX 7700 on 2025-09-17. The MI350X lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct, while the RX 7700 lists Navi II as predecessor and Navi IV as successor. The RX 7700 is marked as Active in production status; the MI350X has no production status recorded.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture on the MI350 256CU chip, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. The RX 7700 uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 32 chip, part of the Navi III (RX 7000) generation with the codename Wheat Nas. These are separate architectural lineages within AMD: CDNA targets compute acceleration, while RDNA targets graphics rendering.

The MI350X's FP32 figure is 72.09 TFLOPS with FP16 also at 72.09 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7700's FP32 is 25.18 TFLOPS with FP16 also at 25.18 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The MI350X has no RT cores listed, while the RX 7700 has 40. The MI350X has no ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, while the RX 7700 has 96 ROPs and a pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s for the MI350X versus 393.4 GTexel/s for the RX 7700.

API support is a defining difference. The MI350X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The RX 7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs follow this split: the MI350X has none, while the RX 7700 has 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C.

The foundry is the same, TSMC, but the node differs: 3 nm for the MI350X versus 5 nm for the RX 7700. The MI350X's die is 2380 mm² versus 346 mm² for the RX 7700, and transistor counts are 185,000 million versus 28,100 million. Power delivery reflects the compute-versus-graphics split: the MI350X is a 1000 W OAM module with no external connectors, while the RX 7700 is a 200 W dual-slot card with 2x 8-pin connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7700 wins wherever standard graphics benchmarks apply. It has recorded scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (2,865), Geekbench OpenCL (106,028), and multiple PassMark tests including DirectX 9 (261), DirectX 10 (92), DirectX 11 (186), DirectX 12 (96), G2D (1,206), G3D (20,974), and GPU Compute (10,963). Its average benchmark score of 15,852 places it in the 58th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals confirm it competes within a few percentage points of parts like the RTX 3060 Ti and RX 9060. The RX 7700 also wins on API compatibility, display output capability, and pixel throughput. Its 96 ROPs and 236.1 GPixel/s pixel rate are real numbers, while the MI350X records zero pixels per second.

The MI350X wins on raw compute and memory resources. Its FP32 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS is roughly 2.86 times the RX 7700's 25.18 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s is about 5.7 times higher. Its memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is approximately 13.1 times higher, and its 288 GB capacity is 18 times larger. The MI350X also wins on transistor scale: 185,000 million versus 28,100 million, and die size at 2380 mm² versus 346 mm². It uses a newer 3 nm process node versus 5 nm, and it has 16,384 shading units versus 2,560.

The MI350X cannot win any graphics workload because it has no ROPs, no display outputs, and no graphics API support. The RX 7700 cannot win any large-memory compute workload because its 16 GB capacity and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth are dwarfed by the MI350X's 288 GB and 8.19 TB/s. The database records no benchmark where both parts competed, so the win split is entirely determined by the specifications: the RX 7700 wins all measured graphics and consumer scenarios, while the MI350X wins all capacity and throughput scenarios where its design parameters apply.