AMD Instinct MI455X vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI455X and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. Both products show an average benchmark score of zero, and neither has any nearest rivals listed. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, placing them at the median of the database distribution, though this is a percentile derived from the absence of recorded measurements rather than a score earned from workload testing.

What can be compared directly are the theoretical compute ceilings recorded in the specification fields. The AMD part lists an FP32 throughput of 157.3 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part lists 28.83 TFLOPS. That places the AMD accelerator at 5.45 times the raw FP32 rate of the NVIDIA chip. The FP16 rates mirror the FP32 figures exactly on both products, with each listing a 1:1 ratio, so the FP16 comparison is the same 157.3 versus 28.83 TFLOPS.

Texture throughput similarly favors AMD. The MI455X records a texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s, while the N1X 48SM records 900.9 GTexel/s. The AMD unit delivers 2.73 times the texel fill rate. Pixel rate is a different story. The NVIDIA part lists 112.6 GPixel/s, while the AMD part lists 0 MPixel/s, and it has zero ROPs recorded. The MI455X is a compute module with no display outputs and no pixel pipeline, so it does not compete in rasterization throughput at all.

Memory bandwidth shows the largest gap in either direction. The AMD module lists 23.3 TB/s of bandwidth across a 24,576-bit bus with HBM4 memory totaling 432 GB. The NVIDIA IGP lists 273.2 GB/s across a 256-bit bus with 128 GB of LPDDR5X. That is an 85.3 times difference in bandwidth, and a 3.375 times difference in memory capacity. The AMD product is in a different bandwidth class entirely, which matters for large-model inference and dense compute workloads.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The AMD base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 2400 MHz. The NVIDIA base clock is 741 MHz with a boost of 2346 MHz. The AMD part boosts 2.3% higher, but the NVIDIA part has a smaller gap between base and boost, suggesting a more sustained frequency profile under load relative to its own base. The memory clocks differ in a different direction: AMD lists 1900 MHz with 7.6 Gbps effective, while NVIDIA lists 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA memory runs at a higher effective data rate per pin, but the AMD bus width is 96 times wider, which is what produces the massive bandwidth advantage.

The Verdict

The recorded data splits these products into separate categories. The AMD Instinct MI455X is a 2 nm TSMC part on CDNA 5.0 architecture with 320,000 million transistors on a 2990 mm² die. It is an EAM module with a 2300 W TDP, a 2700 W suggested PSU, and no display outputs. It targets compute-only environments where power and physical form factor are not limiting constraints. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is a 5 nm TSMC part on Blackwell 2.0 architecture with a 382 mm² die and an unknown transistor count. It is an IGP with a single HDMI output, which means it includes a display path that the AMD module lacks entirely.

The data implies that the AMD product is for users who need massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, and the highest FP32 and FP16 throughput in the database. The NVIDIA product is for users who need a smaller, integrated solution with a display output and a conventional memory bus. The NVIDIA part has 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores recorded; the AMD part lists null for RT cores and tensor cores, which means the database does not attribute ray tracing or tensor hardware to the AMD module. The AMD product also lists zero ROPs and zero pixel rate, confirming it does not rasterize.

The choice depends on workload type. Compute-bound tasks with enormous data sets align with the AMD module. Tasks requiring a display output, ray tracing, or a lower power envelope align with the NVIDIA IGP. The NVIDIA TDP is unknown in the database, so no direct power comparison is possible, but the AMD 2300 W TDP and 2700 W suggested PSU indicate a system-level power demand that an IGP would not normally require.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different foundries and process nodes. AMD uses TSMC at 2 nm, while NVIDIA uses TSMC at 5 nm. The AMD die is 2990 mm² with 320,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 107.0M per mm². The NVIDIA die is 382 mm² with an unknown transistor count, so density cannot be calculated from the recorded data. The AMD die is 7.83 times larger by area.

The architectures are named CDNA 5.0 for AMD and Blackwell 2.0 for NVIDIA. AMD lists the generation as Instinct (MIx) and the predecessor as Radeon Instinct. NVIDIA lists the generation as Blackwell IGP (N1x) with no predecessor recorded. The AMD chip is named MI450 256CU, which indicates 256 compute units. The NVIDIA chip is named GB20B with 48 SMs implied by the product name.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. AMD uses HBM4 with a 24,576-bit bus, 432 GB capacity, and 23.3 TB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus, 128 GB capacity, and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD memory clock is 1900 MHz with 7.6 Gbps effective; the NVIDIA memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. The bus width difference of 96 times explains why the AMD bandwidth is 85.3 times higher despite a lower effective data rate per pin.

The compute resources differ in scale. AMD lists 32,768 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. NVIDIA lists 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The AMD shading unit count is 5.33 times the NVIDIA count. The AMD TMU count is 2.67 times the NVIDIA count. Ray tracing and tensor cores are recorded only for NVIDIA: 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The AMD entries are null for both fields.

The bus interface differs by one generation. AMD uses PCIe 6.0 x16; NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The physical form factor is an EAM Module for AMD and an IGP for NVIDIA. The AMD part has no power connectors and no display outputs. The NVIDIA part also has no power connectors but includes 1x HDMI. Both list API support as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

FAQ

Q: Which product has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X lists 157.3 TFLOPS FP32, which is 5.45 times the 28.83 TFLOPS of the NVIDIA N1X 48SM.

Q: Does either product support display outputs?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM includes 1x HDMI. The AMD Instinct MI455X lists no display outputs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD module has 432 GB of HBM4, while the NVIDIA IGP has 128 GB of LPDDR5X. The AMD capacity is 3.375 times larger.

Q: Which product has ray tracing hardware?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM records 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The AMD Instinct MI455X records null for both RT cores and tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for the AMD part?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X has a TDP of 2300 W and a suggested PSU of 2700 W. The NVIDIA TDP is unknown.

Q: What is the process node for each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X uses TSMC 2 nm. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses TSMC 5 nm.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI455X wins on every compute throughput metric recorded in the database. It has higher FP32 and FP16 rates at 157.3 TFLOPS versus 28.83 TFLOPS. It has a higher texture rate at 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 900.9 GTexel/s. It has far greater memory bandwidth at 23.3 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, and far greater memory capacity at 432 GB versus 128 GB. It also has more shading units, more TMUs, a larger die, a higher transistor count, a smaller process node, and a newer PCIe interface. For dense compute, large batch processing, and workloads that need to hold very large models in memory, the AMD module is the stronger choice.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins on the metrics where the AMD part does not compete. It records 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate and 48 ROPs; the AMD part records 0 MPixel/s and 0 ROPs. It has 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores; the AMD part has null entries for both. It includes a display output, while the AMD part has none. It uses LPDDR5X with a higher effective data rate per pin at 8.5 Gbps versus 7.6 Gbps, though this advantage is dwarfed by the bus width difference. It is an IGP with a small die, so the physical footprint and system integration profile are entirely different from a 2300 W EAM module.

The release dates differ by about two months. The NVIDIA part is dated 2026-05-31, and the AMD part is dated 2026-07-22. Both are current products in the database as of the recorded data, with the NVIDIA production status listed as Active and the AMD production status not specified.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in every major specification field except a few shared characteristics. Both use TSMC as the foundry. Both have no power connectors. Both list API support as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Both have null dimensions. Both have no launch MSRP recorded.

The process node is 2 nm for AMD versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. The architecture is CDNA 5.0 for AMD versus Blackwell 2.0 for NVIDIA. The chip is MI450 256CU for AMD versus GB20B for NVIDIA. The generation is Instinct (MIx) for AMD versus Blackwell IGP (N1x) for NVIDIA.

The transistor count is 320,000 million for AMD versus unknown for NVIDIA. The die size is 2990 mm² for AMD versus 382 mm² for NVIDIA. The transistor density is 107.0M per mm² for AMD versus null for NVIDIA.

The base clock is 1000 MHz for AMD versus 741 MHz for NVIDIA. The boost clock is 2400 MHz for AMD versus 2346 MHz for NVIDIA. The memory clock is 1900 MHz with 7.6 Gbps effective for AMD versus 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.

The memory size is 432 GB for AMD versus 128 GB for NVIDIA. The memory type is HBM4 for AMD versus LPDDR5X for NVIDIA. The bus width is 24,576 bit for AMD versus 256 bit for NVIDIA. The bandwidth is 23.3 TB/s for AMD versus 273.2 GB/s for NVIDIA.

The shading units are 32,768 for AMD versus 6,144 for NVIDIA. The TMUs are 1,024 for AMD versus 384 for NVIDIA. The ROPs are 0 for AMD versus 48 for NVIDIA. The RT cores are null for AMD versus 48 for NVIDIA. The tensor cores are null for AMD versus 192 for NVIDIA.

The pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for AMD versus 112.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. The texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s for AMD versus 900.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. The FP32 is 157.3 TFLOPS for AMD versus 28.83 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. The FP16 is 157.3 TFLOPS (1:1) for AMD versus 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

The TDP is 2300 W for AMD versus unknown for NVIDIA. The slot width is EAM Module for AMD versus IGP for NVIDIA. The suggested PSU is 2700 W for AMD versus null for NVIDIA. The bus interface is PCIe 6.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. The display outputs are none for AMD versus 1x HDMI for NVIDIA. The release date is 2026-07-22 for AMD versus 2026-05-31 for NVIDIA. The predecessor is Radeon Instinct for AMD versus null for NVIDIA. The production status is null for AMD versus Active for NVIDIA.