AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon RX 7800M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI350X and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M. The Instinct MI350X has no recorded benchmark scores, while the Radeon RX 7800M carries a full suite of results. Consequently, a direct numerical comparison between the two cannot be constructed from the recorded data. The MI350X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, which excludes it from the standard graphics benchmark suite.

For the Radeon RX 7800M, the recorded data shows a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2994, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 120778, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 126668. Its PassMark G3D score is 17613, with a GPU compute score of 9342. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 27883, placing it at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 with an average score of 27839 (0.2% behind the RX 7800M), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X at 27973 (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 28020 (0.5% ahead), and the AMD FirePro S7150 at 28117 (0.8% ahead). These deltas are narrow, indicating that the RX 7800M sits in a tightly packed performance band rather than establishing a clear lead over its immediate peers.

The MI350X has an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile of 50, which reflects the absence of any recorded benchmark runs rather than a measured performance level. The wins counter shows zero wins for each product, confirming that no head-to-head tests exist in the database. Any attempt to extrapolate relative performance from the FP32 figures would conflate theoretical throughput with application behavior; the MI350X lists 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, while the RX 7800M lists 35.87 TFLOPS FP32. The data does not support a claim that one outperforms the other in any specific workload, since no common benchmark was executed on both devices.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon RX 7800M wins in every category where the database records measurable results, solely because it has results and the Instinct MI350X has none. The RX 7800M delivers a DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) API profile, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, which allows it to run the standard graphics and compute benchmarks that populate its record. Its pixel rate is 224.2 GPixel/s, its texture rate is 560.4 GTexel/s, and it includes 60 ray tracing cores. These specifications align with a rasterization and ray tracing capable GPU for portable devices, and its benchmark scores reflect that role.

The Instinct MI350X wins in the domain of raw compute capacity and memory bandwidth, based on its listed specifications. It uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7800M uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI350X has 16384 shading units and 1024 texture mapping units, compared to 3840 shading units and 240 TMUs for the RX 7800M. The MI350X texture rate is 2252.8 GTexel/s versus 560.4 GTexel/s for the RX 7800M. The MI350X pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s, reflecting the absence of a rasterization pipeline, whereas the RX 7800M has a functional pixel rate of 224.2 GPixel/s.

The use-case split is clear from the architecture. The MI350X is an OAM module with no display outputs, no power connectors, and a 1000 W TDP, designed for server installations with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RX 7800M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) for portable devices, with a 180 W TDP, and its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The MI350X targets memory-bound compute workloads that require the 288 GB HBM3e pool, while the RX 7800M targets consumer graphics and compute tasks within a mobile power envelope. The database records no overlapping benchmark where both devices could be compared directly.

Architecture Differences

The two AMD products diverge at the architecture level. The Instinct MI350X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the Radeon RX 7800M uses RDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm TSMC process. The MI350X is built on the MI350 256CU chip with a die size of 2380 mm² and 185,000 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm². The RX 7800M uses the Navi 32 chip with a die size of 346 mm² and 28,100 million transistors, yielding a density of 81.2 million per mm². The MI350X has a higher absolute transistor count and a much larger die, but the RX 7800M achieves a slightly higher density per square millimeter.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, with no game clock listed. The RX 7800M has a base clock of 1295 MHz, a boost clock of 2335 MHz, and a game clock of 2145 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the MI350X runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the RX 7800M runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The MI350X memory system uses HBM3e with a 8192-bit bus, while the RX 7800M uses GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus.

The compute resource allocation is asymmetric. The MI350X has 16384 shading units, 1024 TMUs, and zero ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The RX 7800M has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 ray tracing cores. The MI350X supports FP32 and FP16 at 72.09 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 7800M supports both at 35.87 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7800M has a functional pixel pipeline at 224.2 GPixel/s, whereas the MI350X is listed at 0 MPixel/s. The MI350X texture rate is 2252.8 GTexel/s, over four times the RX 7800M rate of 560.4 GTexel/s.

Bus interface and physical format also differ. The MI350X uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and occupies an OAM module slot with dimensions of 102 mm length and 165 mm width. The RX 7800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and is an IGP with no listed dimensions. The MI350X has no power connectors and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU, while the RX 7800M has no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The MI350X has no display outputs, and the RX 7800M display outputs are portable device dependent. API support is absent for the MI350X, while the RX 7800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates place the MI350X at 2025-06-11 and the RX 7800M at 2024-09-10. The MI350X predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the RX 7800M predecessor is Polaris Mobile. The RX 7800M production status is active, while the MI350X production status is not listed.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Instinct MI350X have no benchmark scores in the database?

A: The MI350X has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile of 50. No recorded tests exist for it, likely because it is an OAM module with no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, which prevents it from running standard graphics benchmarks.

Q: How does the Radeon RX 7800M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RX 7800M has an average benchmark score of 27883. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 scores 27839 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X scores 27973 (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti scores 28020 (0.5% ahead), and the AMD FirePro S7150 scores 28117 (0.8% ahead). The RX 7800M sits in a narrow band around these rivals.

Q: What memory configuration does each product use?

A: The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7800M uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI350X memory bandwidth is substantially higher.

Q: Can the Instinct MI350X run graphics workloads?

A: The MI350X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, no ROPs, no ray tracing cores, and no display outputs. Its API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The data indicates it is not designed for graphics rendering.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two products?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RX 7800M has a TDP of 180 W with no suggested PSU listed. The MI350X is a high-power accelerator, while the RX 7800M fits a mobile power envelope.

Q: Which product has more shading units?

A: The MI350X has 16384 shading units, while the RX 7800M has 3840 shading units. The MI350X also has 1024 TMUs versus 240 TMUs for the RX 7800M, though the RX 7800M has 96 ROPs while the MI350X has zero.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a straightforward selection based on intended use. The AMD Radeon RX 7800M is the only one of the two with measurable benchmark performance. Its scores, including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 2994 and a PassMark G3D score of 17613, place it at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it has a functional pixel pipeline at 224.2 GPixel/s. For any workload that requires graphics rendering, ray tracing, or standard consumer compute benchmarks, the RX 7800M is the only viable option in this comparison, since the MI350X cannot execute those workloads at all.

The AMD Instinct MI350X, by contrast, offers a different capability set. It has 288 GB of HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, and 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. Its texture rate of 2252.8 GTexel/s and 16384 shading units indicate a large compute array. However, the database contains no benchmark results for it, and its lack of display outputs and API support means it is not comparable to the RX 7800M on any common metric. The MI350X is an accelerator for server or datacenter compute tasks that require its memory capacity and bandwidth, but the data does not quantify its application-level performance.

The RX 7800M is the correct choice for portable graphics and consumer compute, based on its active production status, its benchmark record, and its 180 W TDP. The MI350X is the correct choice for memory-bound compute acceleration, based on its 1000 W TDP, OAM form factor, and 288 GB memory pool, but its performance remains unmeasured in the database. The percentile difference (73 for the RX 7800M versus 50 for the MI350X) reflects the absence of data for the MI350X, not a measured performance gap. The data confirms that these products target distinct segments, and no direct comparison is possible from the recorded benchmarks.