AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 wins this matchup decisively, taking the only head-to-head benchmark by 34.9% while delivering double the memory capacity and more than double the memory bandwidth. The MI25 remains relevant only as the older, slower foundation of the same Radeon Instinct lineage, and the recorded data shows no test in which it beats its successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two accelerators, and it is not close. In Geekbench OpenCL, the MI60 scores 92488 against the MI25's 68562, a 34.9% advantage for the newer card. That is the entire recorded head-to-head picture: one win for the MI60, zero for the MI25.

The scale of that gap is worth putting into context. The MI60's average benchmark score of 92466 places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, and its closest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (average score 91671, which the MI60 beats by 0.9%) and the RTX A4500 Mobile (91134, a 1.5% advantage). Cards that sit above it, such as the AMD Radeon Pro VII at 97131 (-4.8% for the MI60) and the Radeon RX 7900M at 97487 (-5.2%), show the ceiling of its competitive band.

The MI25's average score of 68562 puts it in the 90th percentile, which sounds respectable until you examine its neighborhood. It trails the Intel Arc A770 (68809) by 0.4%, the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000) by 0.6%, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69870) by 1.9%, and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69986) by 2%. The MI25 loses to every one of its nearest rivals, however narrowly. The MI60, by contrast, wins two of its four closest matchups. The 34.9% gulf between the two Instinct cards spans nearly an entire performance tier.

Architecture Differences

These are two generations of the same design philosophy, and the differences are substantial. The MI60 is built on the Vega 20 chip using TSMC's 7 nm process, while the MI25 uses the Vega 10 chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. The node jump shows clearly in the physical data: the MI60 fits 13,230 million transistors into a 331 mm² die, for a density of 40.0M transistors per mm². The MI25 carries 12,500 million transistors across a much larger 495 mm² die, yielding only 25.3M per mm². The MI60 does more with substantially less silicon.

Architecturally, the MI60 is GCN 5.1 to the MI25's GCN 5.0. Both share an identical top-level compute configuration: 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores.

The clock strategies differ in opposite directions. The MI25 has the higher base clock at 1400 MHz versus 1200 MHz, but the MI60 boosts far higher, reaching 1800 MHz against the MI25's 1500 MHz. That boost advantage, sustained across the same shading unit count, explains much of the compute gap.

Memory is where the designs diverge most sharply. The MI60 pairs 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus running at an effective 2 Gbps, producing 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth. The MI25 offers 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus at an effective 1704 Mbps, delivering 436.2 GB/s. The MI60 has twice the capacity, twice the bus width, and roughly 2.3 times the bandwidth.

Platform features also differ. The MI60 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and carries one mini-DisplayPort 1.4a output; the MI25 is PCIe 3.0 x16 with no display outputs at all. Both are dual-slot cards with identical dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height, both draw a 300 W TDP, and both specify a 700 W suggested PSU, though their power connectors differ: the MI60 uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin, while the MI25 uses two 8-pin connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The MI60 wins everywhere the data measures. Its compute throughput is higher across the board: 14.75 TFLOPS FP32 versus 12.29, and 29.49 TFLOPS FP16 versus 24.58. Its pixel rate of 115.2 GPixel/s beats the MI25's 96.00, and its texture rate of 460.8 GTexel/s beats 384.0. Its memory subsystem, with 1.02 TB/s against 436.2 GB/s and 32 GB against 16 GB, is superior for any workload that is capacity-bound or bandwidth-bound, which covers the compute and data-center tasks these cards were built for.

The MI25's only recorded advantages are a higher base clock (1400 MHz versus 1200 MHz) and a larger die, and neither translates into a benchmark win. It has no display outputs, which further narrows its usable roles relative to the MI60's single mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. There is no workload category in the recorded data where the MI25 comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the MI60 than the MI25 in benchmarks?

A: The MI60 scores 92488 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 68562 for the MI25, a 34.9% lead in the only head-to-head test recorded in the database.

Q: Do these cards support ray tracing or AI tensor cores?

A: No. Both the MI60 and MI25 lack RT cores and tensor cores. Their compute throughput comes from the shading units: 14.75 TFLOPS FP32 for the MI60 and 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 for the MI25.

Q: How does the memory compare?

A: The MI60 has 32 GB of HBM2 with 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth on a 4096-bit bus. The MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 with 436.2 GB/s on a 2048-bit bus. The MI60 doubles capacity and roughly 2.3x the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPUs are closest in performance to each card?

A: The MI60's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91671, 0.9% behind), the RTX A4500 Mobile (91134, 1.5% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97131, 4.8% ahead), and the Radeon RX 7900M (97487, 5.2% ahead). The MI25 sits just below the Intel Arc A770 (68809), the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000), the Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69870), and the Quadro P6000 (69986).

Q: Do both cards have display outputs?

A: No. The MI60 has one mini-DisplayPort 1.4a output. The MI25 has no display outputs at all.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The MI25 launched on 2017-06-26 and the MI60 on 2018-11-17.

Specification Differences

• Chip: Vega 20 (MI60) versus Vega 10 (MI25)
• Architecture: GCN 5.1 versus GCN 5.0
• Process node: 7 nm at TSMC versus 14 nm at GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 13,230 million versus 12,500 million
• Die size: 331 mm² versus 495 mm²
• Transistor density: 40.0M/mm² versus 25.3M/mm²
• Base clock: 1200 MHz versus 1400 MHz
• Boost clock: 1800 MHz versus 1500 MHz
• Memory size: 32 GB versus 16 GB
• Memory bus: 4096 bit versus 2048 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 1.02 TB/s versus 436.2 GB/s
• Memory speed: 2 Gbps effective versus 1704 Mbps effective
• Pixel rate: 115.2 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 460.8 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 14.75 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS
• FP16: 29.49 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus none
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus 2x 8-pin
• Release date: 2018-11-17 versus 2017-06-26

Shared specifications include 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 64 ROPs, HBM2 memory type, a 300 W TDP, dual-slot width, a 700 W suggested PSU, DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3, identical 267 mm by 111 mm dimensions, and end-of-life production status.

The Verdict

The data admits one conclusion: the MI60 is the stronger accelerator in every measured respect. It is 34.9% faster in the sole head-to-head benchmark, delivers roughly 2.3 times the memory bandwidth, doubles memory capacity, offers higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, and adds PCIe 4.0 plus a display output the MI25 lacks. It also achieves all of this on a far smaller die, 331 mm² versus 495 mm², thanks to the 7 nm node.

The MI25's case rests on nothing measurable in this database. It loses the head-to-head, loses to all four of its nearest rivals, and its only nominal edge, a higher base clock, is erased by the MI60's much higher boost ceiling. Anyone choosing between these two for compute workloads should pick the MI60 without hesitation. The MI25 matters primarily as a historical data point, the GCN 5.0 stepping stone that the MI60's GCN 5.1 design comprehensively surpassed.