AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon RX 7700S Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI350X and AMD Radeon RX 7700S occupy entirely different segments of the hardware spectrum, and the recorded data makes that split unambiguous. The MI350X is a data center accelerator with no display outputs, a 1000 W power draw, and 288 GB of HBM3e memory. The RX 7700S is an integrated laptop GPU (IGP) with a 100 W power draw, 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, and portable device dependent outputs.

Benchmark results exist only for the RX 7700S, which holds a 78th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database. The MI350X has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero. The data shows the MI350X is not a card for gaming or client workloads; it is a compute accelerator. The RX 7700S is the only option with user-facing graphics capability, API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), and measurable performance results. For anyone needing a rendering-capable GPU for a laptop, the RX 7700S is the only viable choice from this pair. For anyone running massive parallel compute loads requiring extreme memory capacity, the MI350X is the clear selection, provided the system can support its power and form factor.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture with the MI350 256CU chip, built on a 3 nm TSMC process. The RX 7700S uses RDNA 3.0 with the Navi 33 chip, built on a 6 nm TSMC process. The MI350X packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm². The RX 7700S contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2 million per mm². The MI350X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units, while the RX 7700S has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI350X reports zero ROPs and zero pixel rate, consistent with its lack of display outputs.

Clock behavior also diverges sharply. The MI350X runs a 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, while the RX 7700S runs a 1500 MHz base, 2200 MHz game clock, and 2500 MHz boost. Memory configurations are radically different: the MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7700S uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the MI350X and 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 7700S.

Compute throughput numbers highlight the MI350X's purpose. It delivers 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 and the same 72.09 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The RX 7700S delivers 20.48 TFLOPS FP32 and 40.96 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). Texture rates are 2,252.8 GTexel/s for the MI350X versus 320.0 GTexel/s for the RX 7700S. The RX 7700S has 32 ray tracing cores; the MI350X lists none. The MI350X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the RX 7700S uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI350X is an OAM module measuring 102 mm by 165 mm, with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RX 7700S has no listed dimensions and no suggested PSU. The MI350X was released on June 11, 2025, and lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. The RX 7700S was released on January 3, 2023, with Polaris Mobile as its predecessor, and remains in active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, meaning no shared tests exist between these two products. The MI350X has no entries in its benchmark array. The RX 7700S has three recorded scores. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 7700S scores 2185. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 62983. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 36380. The RX 7700S average benchmark score is 33849.

Without a common test, direct comparison of raw performance is impossible from the recorded data. The nearest rivals for the RX 7700S provide context for its standing. The AMD Radeon HD 7950 averages 33951, a 0.3% difference from the RX 7700S. The AMD Radeon RX 480 averages 33997, a 0.4% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB averages 33694, which is 0.5% lower than the RX 7700S. The NVIDIA RTX A5000 averages 33622, 0.7% lower. These deltas show the RX 7700S sits within a narrow band of older desktop GPUs, roughly 0.7% above the RTX A5000 and 0.4% below the RX 480.

The MI350X has no rival data and no percentile movement beyond the neutral 50th percentile baseline, which reflects its absence of consumer benchmark submissions. The data indicates the MI350X is not evaluated through the same testing methodology as client GPUs, likely due to its server-oriented nature and lack of graphics output.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350X support DirectX or Vulkan for gaming?

A: No. The MI350X lists API support as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. It also has no display outputs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two GPUs?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory, while the RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. The MI350X also has a much wider 8192-bit bus versus 128-bit on the RX 7700S.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 20.48 TFLOPS for the RX 7700S. The MI350X also matches that figure for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 7700S reaches 40.96 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio.

Q: Is the RX 7700S currently in production?

A: Yes, the RX 7700S has a production status of "Active" in the database. The MI350X has no recorded production status.

Q: What is the power requirement for the MI350X?

A: The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU rating of 1400 W. It uses no power connectors because it is an OAM module. The RX 7700S has a 100 W TDP.

Q: How does the RX 7700S compare to the NVIDIA RTX A5000 in average benchmark score?

A: The RX 7700S average benchmark score is 33849, which is 0.7% higher than the RTX A5000's average of 33622.

Q: What process nodes do the two chips use?

A: The MI350X uses a 3 nm TSMC process, and the RX 7700S uses a 6 nm TSMC process.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350X wins decisively in raw compute metrics. Its 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 is more than 3.5 times the RX 7700S figure of 20.48 TFLOPS. Its FP16 output at 72.09 TFLOPS exceeds the RX 7700S's 40.96 TFLOPS. Texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 320.0 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 288.0 GB/s, a 28-fold difference. Memory capacity is 288 GB versus 8 GB. The MI350X also uses the faster PCIe 5.0 interface, whereas the RX 7700S uses PCIe 4.0. The MI350X has far more shading units (16,384 versus 2,048) and TMUs (1,024 versus 128). Its 3 nm process node is more advanced than the 6 nm node on the RX 7700S, and its transistor count of 185,000 million dwarfs the 13,300 million in the RX 7700S. The MI350X also has a higher transistor density at 77.7M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm².

The RX 7700S wins in areas that matter for client and mobile use. It has a higher base clock (1500 MHz versus 1000 MHz) and a higher boost clock (2500 MHz versus 2200 MHz). It has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 160.0 GPixel/s, while the MI350X has zero ROPs and zero pixel rate. The RX 7700S includes 32 ray tracing cores, which the MI350X lacks. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI350X has no API support. The RX 7700S has display outputs, albeit portable device dependent, whereas the MI350X has none. The RX 7700S draws 100 W versus 1000 W for the MI350X, making it suitable for battery-powered systems. It also has a smaller die (204 mm² versus 2380 mm²), which is appropriate for an integrated mobile part.

In benchmark standing, the RX 7700S holds a 78th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 33849. The MI350X has no benchmark score and sits at the 50th percentile baseline. The RX 7700S also has nearest rival data showing it trades positions within 0.7% of several older desktop cards, indicating its performance class is well understood. The MI350X has no rival comparisons in the database. The RX 7700S is the only one of the two with any recorded benchmark results, which means the database can verify its performance but cannot verify the MI350X through the same methods. The MI350X wins for large-scale compute and memory-intensive workloads, while the RX 7700S wins for portability, graphics output, API compatibility, and measurable client performance.