AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs AMD Radeon RX 7900M Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 7900M and AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 sit at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, separated by six years of architecture evolution. The RX 7900M is a modern mobile flagship built on a 5 nm process, while the MI25 is an older data center accelerator from the GCN era. The database's measurements reveal a stark generational gap, but the interesting story lies in how each card's design philosophy shapes its performance profile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The RX 7900M scores 129,499 points, while the MI25 scores 68,562 points. This represents an 88.9% advantage for the newer card, a delta so large that it effectively places the two in different performance leagues. The RX 7900M nearly doubles the MI25's compute output in this test, which measures raw GPGPU throughput across a variety of workloads.

This OpenCL result is particularly telling because it exercises the cards in a way that favors neither gaming nor compute specifically. The RX 7900M's RDNA 3.0 architecture with 4,608 shading units and 288 texture mapping units simply outmuscles the MI25's 4,096 shaders and 256 TMUs. The clock speeds amplify this gap: the RX 7900M boosts to 2090 MHz versus the MI25's 1500 MHz, a 39% frequency advantage that compounds with the shader count difference.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the pattern holds. The RX 7900M averages 97,487 points, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs. The MI25 averages 68,562 points, sitting in the 90th percentile. While both are high performers relative to the broader GPU landscape, the RX 7900M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (101,872 average, 4.3% higher) and the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131 average, 0.4% lower). The MI25's closest competitors are the Intel Arc A770 (68,809, 0.4% higher) and the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000, 0.6% higher).

The MI25 does not win any head-to-head benchmark in the database, while the RX 7900M claims the single recorded victory. This is not a balanced competition; it is a clear generational wipeout in raw compute terms. The data shows that the RX 7900M's FP32 throughput of 38.52 TFLOPS dwarfs the MI25's 12.29 TFLOPS, a 3.1x difference that explains the OpenCL gap.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 7900M in the only shared benchmark?

A: The RX 7900M scores 129,499 in Geekbench OpenCL against the MI25's 68,562, a 88.9% performance advantage.

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

A: The RX 7900M sits in the 94th percentile, while the MI25 ranks in the 90th percentile according to the database.

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

A: The RX 7900M delivers 576.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR6 bus, while the MI25 provides 436.2 GB/s over a 2048-bit HBM2 interface.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The RX 7900M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MI25 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the manufacturing process difference?

A: The RX 7900M uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the MI25 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The RX 7900M packs 57,700 million transistors, compared to the MI25's 12,500 million.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is the core of their performance divergence. The RX 7900M uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 31 chip, codenamed Plum Bonito. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, packing 57,700 million transistors into a 529 mm² die. The transistor density reaches 109.1 million per square millimeter, a figure that reflects the advanced manufacturing node.

The MI25, by contrast, uses GCN 5.0 architecture on the Vega 10 chip. It operates on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The transistor density is just 25.3 million per square millimeter. While the die sizes are similar (529 mm² versus 495 mm²), the RX 7900M crams over 4.6 times more transistors into roughly the same physical space.

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The RX 7900M uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI25 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a massive 2048-bit bus, but the lower memory clock (1704 Mbps effective versus 18 Gbps effective) limits it to 436.2 GB/s. The HBM2 approach gives the MI25 an enormous bus width, but the older memory technology cannot match the newer GDDR6's effective speed.

The compute pipelines reflect their intended workloads. The RX 7900M features 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 72 ray tracing cores. It supports ray tracing hardware, a feature entirely absent from the MI25. The MI25 has 4,096 shaders, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores. The RX 7900M's pixel rate of 401.3 GPixel/s and texture rate of 601.9 GTexel/s dwarf the MI25's 96.00 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design also diverge sharply. The RX 7900M is an integrated GPU with no power connectors and a 180 W TDP, designed for portable devices. The MI25 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 700 W suggested PSU, with a 300 W TDP. The MI25 has no display outputs, while the RX 7900M's outputs are portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the RX 7900M is the superior performer in every measurable benchmark category. Its 88.9% lead in OpenCL, its higher average score, and its 94th percentile ranking all confirm this. The MI25, despite its 90th percentile rank, is simply outclassed by a newer architecture with more transistors, higher clocks, and better memory efficiency.

The MI25's sole advantage lies in its 2048-bit memory bus, which is a legacy of its HBM2 design. However, this does not translate into a performance win in the database's measurements. The card's 436.2 GB/s bandwidth is lower than the RX 7900M's 576.0 GB/s, and its 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is less than one-third of the newer card's 38.52 TFLOPS.

For compute workloads measured by OpenCL, the RX 7900M is the obvious choice. Its ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support also make it far more versatile for modern gaming and rendering tasks. The MI25, as an end-of-life product with no display outputs, serves a narrow data center niche that the RX 7900M can handle with better performance and lower power draw.

Specification Differences

| Specification | RX 7900M | MI25 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 109.1M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1825 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2090 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 18 Gbps effective | 1704 Mbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 436.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 288 | 256 |

| ROPs | 192 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 72 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 401.3 GPixel/s | 96.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 601.9 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 38.52 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 77.05 TFLOPS (2:1) | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 180 W | 300 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-10-18 | 2017-06-26 |

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7900M wins in raw compute performance, as demonstrated by its 88.9% OpenCL advantage. It also leads in memory bandwidth (576.0 vs 436.2 GB/s), pixel rate (401.3 vs 96.00 GPixel/s), texture rate (601.9 vs 384.0 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (38.52 vs 12.29 TFLOPS). Its 72 ray tracing cores give it capabilities the MI25 cannot match, and its lower 180 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient for mobile deployments.

The MI25's wins are limited to structural specifications. It has a wider 2048-bit memory bus, which in theory provides more parallel memory channels. It also has a larger physical footprint (267 mm length, 111 mm height) that suits rack mounting. However, none of these translate into benchmark victories. The MI25's 90th percentile ranking shows it remains a capable compute card by historical standards, but against the RX 7900M, the data shows no contest.

For users prioritizing modern gaming features, ray tracing, and high-throughput compute, the RX 7900M is the only choice between these two. For those constrained to legacy data center infrastructure with PCIe 3.0 and dual-slot requirements, the MI25 remains functional but severely outdated. The benchmark data does not support any scenario where the MI25 outperforms the RX 7900M.