AMD Instinct MI350X vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data in this comparison is unusual because the two accelerators occupy entirely different segments, and the recorded benchmark pool reflects that. The AMD Instinct MI350X has no benchmark entries in the database, resulting in an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The NVIDIA RTX A1000, in contrast, has three recorded benchmark results, an average score of 34,207, and a percentile rank of 79.

The RTX A1000 delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 969. In Geekbench compute workloads, it records 52,078 in OpenCL and 49,574 in Vulkan. These numbers position it within a tight competitive cluster. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB, posts an average score of 34,154, which places the A1000 just 0.2% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 560 XT scores 34,133, again a 0.2% gap in favor of the A1000. The NVIDIA TITAN V scores 34,355, which is 0.4% higher than the A1000, making it the only rival in the list that edges ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 33,997, leaving the A1000 0.6% ahead.

Because the MI350X has no benchmark scores, there are no head-to-head benchmark entries, no recorded wins for either product, and no direct numerical comparison possible on any shared workload. The absence of data for the MI350X means the database cannot produce a direct performance delta between these two units. The comparison must instead rely on architectural specifications and the fact that the MI350X is designed for a different computational role entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins in every measured benchmark category, simply because it is the only one with recorded results. Its 6.737 TFLOPS FP32 and identical 6.737 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) performance, combined with 72 tensor cores and 18 ray tracing cores, make it a functional workstation card for graphics, rendering, and compute tasks that require driver-level API support. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, meaning it can drive displays directly.

The AMD Instinct MI350X, by contrast, has no display outputs and no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. Its role is datacenter acceleration, not workstation graphics. The MI350X uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, contains 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, and reaches a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm². It has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs, which aligns with a compute-focused design rather than a rasterization-focused one. Its FP32 output is 72.09 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output is also 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1), which is over 10 times the FP32 throughput of the RTX A1000.

Memory is where the MI350X separates itself decisively. It carries 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI350X memory bandwidth is more than 42 times higher, and its capacity is 36 times larger. The texture rate of the MI350X is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 105.3 GTexel/s for the RTX A1000. The pixel rate for the MI350X is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, while the RTX A1000 manages 46.78 GPixel/s.

The Verdict

The data indicates these products are not competitors. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 is a 50 W single-slot workstation card with active production status, a 163 mm length, and a 69 mm height. It is built on Samsung's 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Its 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs give it a conventional graphics pipeline. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and requires only a 250 W suggested PSU. Its release date is recorded as April 2024, and it succeeds the Quadro Turing line.

The AMD Instinct MI350X is an OAM module with a 1000 W TDP, no power connectors listed, and a 1400 W suggested PSU. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. Its dimensions are 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width. It was released in June 2025 and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The chip is labeled MI350 256CU, and the architecture is CDNA 4.0.

For any workload that requires graphics output, API compatibility, or ray tracing, the RTX A1000 is the only viable option in this pair. For massive parallel compute, especially FP16 or FP32 throughput with enormous memory capacity, the MI350X holds the specification advantage. The percentile data reinforces this split: the A1000 sits at the 79th percentile among all GPUs, while the MI350X sits at the 50th percentile with no benchmark scores to support a higher placement. The verdict is straightforward: choose the RTX A1000 for measured, verified workstation performance and ecosystem support; choose the MI350X only if the workload demands its unique memory and compute scale, accepting that no benchmark data exists to validate real-world performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance in the database?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X records 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA RTX A1000 records 6.737 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The MI350X provides 8.19 TB/s from 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus. The RTX A1000 provides 192.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the RTX A1000's average benchmark score and nearest rival?

A: The RTX A1000 has an average benchmark score of 34,207. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB with an average score of 34,154, a 0.2% difference.

Q: Does the MI350X support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI350X. The RTX A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the thermal design power figures?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RTX A1000 has a TDP of 50 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The RTX A1000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The MI350X has no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the RTX A1000 uses Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process. The MI350X chip is designated MI350 256CU, and the RTX A1000 uses the GA107 chip. The MI350X contains 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a density of 77.7 million transistors per mm². The RTX A1000 contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding 43.5 million per mm².

The MI350X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs, with zero ROPs. The RTX A1000 has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX A1000 additionally has 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, features that are not listed for the MI350X. The MI350X has no pixel rate (0 MPixel/s) and a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s. The RTX A1000 has a pixel rate of 46.78 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 105.3 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI350X uses HBM3e with 8192-bit bus width and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX A1000 uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI350X has no API support for graphics, while the RTX A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, and the RTX A1000 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The two units differ on nearly every recorded specification. Process node: 3 nm (MI350X) versus 8 nm (RTX A1000). 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 727 MHz. Boost clock: 2200 MHz versus 1462 MHz. Memory clock: 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective versus 1500 MHz 12 Gbps effective.

Memory size: 288 GB versus 8 GB. Memory type: HBM3e versus GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus 192.0 GB/s. Shading units: 16,384 versus 2,304. TMUs: 1,024 versus 72. ROPs: 0 versus 32. RT cores: not listed versus 18. Tensor cores: not listed versus 72. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 46.78 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 105.3 GTexel/s. FP32: 72.09 TFLOPS versus 6.737 TFLOPS. FP16: 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP: 1000 W versus 50 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus Single-slot. Power connectors: None for both, but suggested PSU differs at 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. Dimensions: 102 mm length and 165 mm width versus 163 mm length and 69 mm height. Release date: June 2025 versus April 2024. Production status: not listed versus Active. Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus Quadro Turing. Successor: not listed versus Workstation Ada.