AMD Instinct MI355X vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Instinct MI355X and the AMD Radeon RX 7600. The MI355X returns an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile of 50 among all GPUs, while the RX 7600 holds a percentile of 57. The absence of a shared test suite means the database cannot produce a direct score comparison, so the gap between the two is expressed through their separate benchmark profiles and architectural specifications.

The RX 7600 provides the only concrete benchmark scores in this comparison. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it records 2310 points. Geekbench OpenCL shows 88051 points, while Geekbench Vulkan falls to 34401 points. The Passmark suite splits into several tests: DirectX 10 scores 84, DirectX 11 scores 172, DirectX 12 scores 58, DirectX 9 scores 226, G2D scores 984, G3D scores 16634, and GPU compute scores 8790. Its average benchmark score sits at 15171.

For the MI355X, the database lists no benchmark scores at all. Its average benchmark score is zero, and its percentile versus all GPUs is 50. The nearest rivals list is empty, meaning no comparative data points exist for this accelerator. The RX 7600, by contrast, has four nearest rivals with close scores: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM at 15199 (0.2 percent behind), the AMD Radeon 680M at 15270 (0.7 percent behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 560X at 15082 (0.6 percent ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti at 15063 (0.7 percent ahead). These deltas are all under one percent, indicating the RX 7600 sits in a tightly packed performance cluster.

The MI355X cannot be placed within that cluster because its benchmark absence prevents any score comparison. What the data does show is a fundamental difference in measurement: the RX 7600 has a full suite of DirectX and compute tests, while the MI355X has none recorded. The MI355X also lists no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, and a pixel rate of zero. Those fields align with an accelerator designed for compute workloads rather than graphics rendering, which explains the lack of conventional GPU benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600 wins every recorded benchmark category by default, since it is the only unit with scores. Its strongest relative result appears in Geekbench OpenCL at 88051 points, which is more than double its Geekbench Vulkan score of 34401 points. That gap suggests OpenCL compute performance is significantly stronger than Vulkan rendering performance on the same hardware. The Passmark G3D score of 16634 points and GPU compute score of 8790 points further separate graphics and compute capabilities, with G3D nearly doubling the compute result.

The MI355X wins on raw specification fronts that do not require benchmark scores. It uses 16384 shading units compared to 2048 on the RX 7600, an eightfold difference. Its texture rate reaches 2457.6 GTexel/s against 339.8 GTexel/s for the RX 7600, a 7.2x advantage. The FP32 compute rating of 78.64 TFLOPS for the MI355X versus 21.75 TFLOPS for the RX 7600 represents a 3.6x lead. These are theoretical peak figures, not measured results, so they indicate capability rather than confirmed performance.

Memory capacity and bandwidth tell a similar story. The MI355X carries 288 GB of HBM3e memory with a 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI355X delivers roughly 28.4x the memory capacity and 28.4x the bandwidth, though the comparison spans different memory technologies and bus widths. The MI355X also uses a 3 nm process node versus 6 nm for the RX 7600, and packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, compared to 13,300 million transistors on 204 mm².

Architecture Differences

The MI355X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture with the MI350 256CU chip, while the RX 7600 uses RDNA 3.0 with the Navi 33 chip. These are distinct design families with different priorities. CDNA targets compute acceleration, as seen in the absence of display outputs, the lack of any API support, and the zero pixel rate. RDNA targets graphics rendering, as shown by the RX 7600's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, plus its 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

The MI355X has no RT cores listed, while the RX 7600 includes 32 RT cores. The MI355X also lists zero ROPs, while the RX 7600 has 64. The texture mapping unit counts differ substantially: 1024 TMUs on the MI355X versus 128 on the RX 7600. The shading unit ratio is 16384 to 2048. These numbers reflect the different roles: the MI355X scales up shader and texture throughput for compute workloads, while the RX 7600 dedicates silicon to rasterization and ray tracing.

The codename for the RX 7600 is Hotpink Bonefish, and it belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The MI355X has no codename listed and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The MI355X predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the RX 7600 predecessor is Navi II and its successor is Navi IV. The RX 7600 production status is Active, while the MI355X has no production status recorded. The MI355X release date is 2025-06-11, and the RX 7600 release date is 2023-05-24.

Specification Differences

The process node differs: the MI355X uses 3 nm, the RX 7600 uses 6 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor density favors the MI355X at 77.7M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm² for the RX 7600. The MI355X base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 2400 MHz, while the RX 7600 runs a 1720 MHz base, 2250 MHz game clock, and 2655 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the MI355X versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 7600.

Power requirements are far apart. The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and suggests an 1800 W PSU, with no power connectors listed because it uses an OAM Module slot width. The RX 7600 has a 165 W TDP, requires a 450 W PSU, uses a single 8-pin connector, and fits a dual-slot form factor. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI355X versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RX 7600.

Physical dimensions favor the MI355X in length but not width. The MI355X measures 102 mm long and 165 mm wide, while the RX 7600 is 204 mm long and 115 mm high. The MI355X has no height listed, and the RX 7600 has no width listed. The FP16 figures match FP32 on both cards at a 1:1 ratio: 78.64 TFLOPS for the MI355X and 21.75 TFLOPS for the RX 7600. The RX 7600 has a launch MSRP of 269 USD, which the MI355X does not have listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RX 7600 ranks at the 57th percentile, while the MI355X ranks at the 50th percentile.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The RX 7600 has an average benchmark score of 15171, while the MI355X has an average benchmark score of 0, meaning no benchmark scores are recorded for the MI355X.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The MI355X provides 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth through HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, while the RX 7600 provides 288.0 GB/s through GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the MI355X support any display outputs?

A: No, the MI355X lists no display outputs, while the RX 7600 has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: What are the FP32 compute ratings for both GPUs?

A: The MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and the RX 7600 delivers 21.75 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 7600 has 32 RT cores, while the MI355X has no RT cores listed.

The Verdict

The data describes two GPUs with opposite design goals. The MI355X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no recorded benchmarks. Its 16384 shading units, 1024 TMUs, 288 GB of HBM3e memory, and 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 compute point toward datacenter-scale workloads. The RX 7600 is a consumer graphics card with a full benchmark suite, ray tracing cores, display outputs, and a 57th percentile ranking.

The benchmark scores all belong to the RX 7600, so any performance comparison in this database is one-sided. The MI355X cannot be validated against the RX 7600 through measured results. Its zero benchmark score and empty nearest rivals list mean the database has no evidence of its real-world performance. The RX 7600 sits within one percent of four rivals, all clustered between 15063 and 15270 points, which places it in a competitive midrange segment.

For anyone selecting based on recorded data, the RX 7600 is the only option with measurable results. For anyone selecting based on architectural specifications, the MI355X offers dramatically higher compute ceilings, memory capacity, and bandwidth, but those are theoretical figures without benchmark confirmation. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload requires graphics output and driver-level API support, which the MI355X lacks, or massive parallel compute throughput, which the RX 7600 cannot approach. The database does not contain enough evidence to declare a single winner across all use cases.