AMD Instinct MI350X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350X and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 occupy entirely separate segments of the hardware spectrum, and their benchmark data reflects fundamentally different design goals. The MI350X is an accelerator with no recorded benchmark scores in the database, giving it a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs despite an average score of zero. The RTX 4010, by contrast, has a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2893, placing it in the 18th percentile overall.

The RTX 4010 wins the only measurable head-to-head comparison available, since it has actual benchmark data and the MI350X does not. The MI350X wins in every architectural capacity metric, but those advantages are not expressed in any test scores. The data shows a clear functional split: the RTX 4010 is a rendering-oriented product with display outputs and graphics API support, while the MI350X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs and no graphics API compatibility.

For graphics workloads, the RTX 4010 delivers measurable performance. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 2893 sits within a tight cluster of rivals, trailing the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB by 0.5 percent, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF by 0.6 percent, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB by 0.7 percent. It also trails the NVIDIA Quadro P600 by 1 percent. These deltas are small, indicating that the RTX 4010 performs at a level comparable to those established products in this specific test.

The MI350X has no benchmark scores, no percentile comparison against rivals, and no head-to-head results. Its wins are all structural: it uses a larger process node advantage, a vastly larger die, and a memory subsystem that exceeds anything the RTX 4010 can approach. But none of those architectural advantages translate into recorded test scores in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two products diverge at every level of their design. The AMD Instinct MI350X uses a chip designated MI350 256CU, built on the CDNA 4.0 architecture. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 185,000 million transistors on a die measuring 2380 mm². That yields a transistor density of 77.7 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 uses a GA107 chip on the Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter.

The MI350X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units, with zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. Its texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s, and its FP32 and FP16 throughput are both 72.09 TFLOPS, running at a 1:1 ratio. The RTX 4010 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 42.29 GTexel/s. Its FP32 and FP16 figures are both 2.706 TFLOPS, also at 1:1.

The RTX 4010 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, while the MI350X lists neither RT cores nor tensor cores in its specifications. The RTX 4010 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI350X has no graphics API support. The MI350X has no display outputs, while the RTX 4010 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections.

Memory architecture differs completely. The MI350X carries 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is 2000 MHz, or 8 Gbps effective. The RTX 4010 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth at 1500 MHz, or 12 Gbps effective. Clock speeds also differ, with the MI350X running at a 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, while the RTX 4010 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost.

Power and physical specifications are equally divergent. The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the RTX 4010 has a TDP of 50 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI350X is an OAM Module, while the RTX 4010 is a single-slot card. Neither uses external power connectors. The MI350X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, while the RTX 4010 measures 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

FAQ

Q: Which product has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X has a boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 boosts to 1762 MHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The MI350X provides 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth over an 8192-bit HBM3e interface, while the RTX 4010 provides 96.00 GB/s over a 64-bit GDDR6 interface.

Q: Does the MI350X support DirectX?

A: No. The MI350X lists DirectX as N/A, along with OpenGL and Vulkan. The RTX 4010 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How does the RTX 4010 compare to its nearest rivals in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The RTX 4010 scores 2893, trailing the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB by 0.5 percent, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF by 0.6 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB by 0.7 percent, and the NVIDIA Quadro P600 by 1 percent.

Q: What is the transistor count of each chip?

A: The MI350X contains 185,000 million transistors on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the RTX 4010 contains 8,700 million transistors on an 8 nm Samsung process.

Q: Which product has ray tracing capabilities?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The AMD Instinct MI350X does not list any RT or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products:

• Chip: MI350 256CU versus GA107
• Architecture: CDNA 4.0 versus Ampere
• Process node: 3 nm versus 8 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Samsung
• Transistors: 185,000 million versus 8,700 million
• Die size: 2380 mm² versus 200 mm²
• Transistor density: 77.7M / mm² versus 43.5M / mm²
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 1417 MHz
• Boost clock: 2200 MHz versus 1762 MHz
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective versus 1500 MHz 12 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 288 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory type: HBM3e versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus 96.00 GB/s
• Shading units: 16384 versus 768
• TMUs: 1024 versus 24
• ROPs: 0 versus 16
• RT cores: None versus 6
• Tensor cores: None versus 24
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s
• FP32: 72.09 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS
• FP16: 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 1000 W versus 50 W
• Slot width: OAM Module versus Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus 250 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display outputs: No outputs versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 102 mm length, 165 mm width versus 163 mm length, 69 mm height
• Production status: Not specified versus Active
• Release date: 2025-06-11 versus 2024-04-15
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus GeForce 30
• Successor: Not specified versus GeForce 50
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 50 versus 18
• Average benchmark score: 0 versus 2893

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Instinct MI350X and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010. The database shows zero wins for either product in direct comparison tests. The only benchmark score available belongs to the RTX 4010, which recorded 2893 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test.

That score places the RTX 4010 at the 18th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are clustered within one percent: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB scores 2907, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF scores 2910, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB scores 2913, and the NVIDIA Quadro P600 scores 2923. The RTX 4010 trails each by a narrow margin, with deltas of -0.5, -0.6, -0.7, and -1 percent respectively.

The MI350X has an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50, which is a neutral position indicating no tested performance data. Its architectural specifications suggest substantial compute capability, with FP32 throughput at 72.09 TFLOPS and memory bandwidth at 8.19 TB/s, but those figures have no corresponding benchmark results in the database.

The RTX 4010 delivers a measured result in a graphics workload, while the MI350X delivers none. In the absence of any overlapping tests, the only quantitative comparison is indirect: the RTX 4010 has a score and the MI350X does not. The MI350X's advantages in shading units, texture rate, memory capacity, and bandwidth are real but unverified by any recorded performance test.

Given the complete absence of head-to-head data, the two products cannot be ranked against each other on any shared benchmark. The RTX 4010 demonstrates measurable graphics performance at a level close to several established NVIDIA products, while the MI350X remains an untested accelerator in the database, defined entirely by its specifications rather than its results.