AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs AMD Radeon VII Comparison

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 and AMD Radeon VII are both end-of-life AMD accelerators built on the Vega architecture, but they serve distinctly different roles. The MI25 is a datacenter-oriented compute card with no display outputs, while the Radeon VII is a dual-slot graphics card with full display connectivity. Benchmark data shows a clear performance gap in OpenCL compute workloads, with the Radeon VII delivering substantially higher scores. Both cards hold the 90th percentile among all GPUs, yet their architectural differences and memory configurations create distinct use-case profiles.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon VII wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a decisive margin. Its score of 91947 versus the MI25’s 68562 represents a 25.4% advantage. This makes the Radeon VII the clear choice for general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, such as rendering, scientific simulation, or data processing tasks that scale well with raw FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth.

The MI25, despite losing the head-to-head, still holds its own in specific deployment scenarios. As a Radeon Instinct product with no display outputs, it is designed for server racks where video output is unnecessary. Its 16 GB of HBM2 memory equals the Radeon VII’s capacity, but its narrower 2048-bit bus and 436.2 GB/s bandwidth are half the Radeon VII’s 4096-bit bus and 1.02 TB/s. In memory-bound workloads where capacity matters more than bandwidth, the MI25 remains viable. Its 300 W TDP is only 5 W higher than the Radeon VII, but its 267 mm length makes it slightly more compact than the Radeon VII’s 280 mm, which can matter in dense chassis.

The Radeon VII also wins on architectural maturity. It uses the newer GCN 5.1 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, whereas the MI25 uses GCN 5.0 on 14 nm GlobalFoundries. This translates to a higher boost clock of 1750 MHz versus 1500 MHz, and higher pixel and texture rates: 112.0 GPixel/s and 420.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s. For workloads that are clock-sensitive or rely on rasterization throughput, the Radeon VII is superior.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental split is process node and chip design. The MI25 uses Vega 10, fabricated on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The Radeon VII uses Vega 20, built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, packing 13,230 million transistors into a smaller 331 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 40.0M / mm² for the Radeon VII versus 25.3M / mm² for the MI25, a 58% improvement in density that explains the Radeon VII’s higher clocks despite similar transistor counts.

Shader configuration differs notably. The MI25 has 4096 shading units and 256 TMUs, while the Radeon VII has 3840 shading units and 240 TMUs. Both have 64 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Radeon VII achieves higher FP32 throughput at 13.44 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS, thanks to its higher boost clock. FP16 performance follows the same 2:1 ratio, with the Radeon VII at 26.88 TFLOPS and the MI25 at 24.58 TFLOPS.

Memory is the most dramatic divergence. The MI25 uses 16 GB of HBM2 across a 2048-bit bus, delivering 436.2 GB/s. The Radeon VII also has 16 GB of HBM2 but doubles the bus width to 4096 bits, achieving 1.02 TB/s—more than twice the bandwidth. Memory clocks are also higher on the Radeon VII: 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective). This bandwidth advantage is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Power and physical design are similar but not identical. Both are dual-slot cards with 2x 8-pin power connectors. The MI25 has a 300 W TDP and suggests a 700 W PSU, while the Radeon VII has a 295 W TDP and suggests a 600 W PSU. The Radeon VII is longer at 280 mm versus 267 mm, and taller at 125 mm versus 111 mm, with a defined width of 40 mm. The MI25 has no display outputs, whereas the Radeon VII offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The MI25 launched in 2017, the Radeon VII in 2019. The Radeon VII’s predecessor is listed as “Vega” and its successor as “Navi,” while the MI25’s predecessor is “FirePro Data Center.”

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL. The MI25 scores 68562, while the Radeon VII scores 91947, giving the Radeon VII a win with a deltaPct of -25.4% (negative indicating the MI25 is behind). This is a substantial gap, roughly 34% higher raw score for the Radeon VII. The margin is consistent with the Radeon VII’s higher bandwidth and clock speeds.

Looking at nearest rivals provides context for each card’s standing. The MI25’s average benchmark score is 68562, putting it 0.4% behind the Intel Arc A770 (68809), 0.6% behind the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000), 1.9% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69870), and 2.0% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69986). These are tight margins—the MI25 is essentially competitive with a mid-range Arc GPU and a mining-specific NVIDIA card, though slightly behind professional workstation cards.

The Radeon VII’s average benchmark score is 66004, which is lower than its OpenCL score because it also includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2304, a Geekbench Metal score of 77975, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 91788. Its nearest rivals show a different pattern: it is 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Tesla T4 (66733), but 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P40 (65095), 2.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64212), and 3.4% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 30HX (63842). This suggests the Radeon VII sits comfortably above several datacenter and workstation cards in average performance, despite its OpenCL advantage being even larger.

The Radeon VII’s Vulkan score of 91788 and Metal score of 77975 (on Apple platforms) indicate strong API versatility, while the MI25 lacks these benchmark entries. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2304 provides a gaming-oriented data point for the Radeon VII, though both cards are primarily compute-focused. Overall, the Radeon VII wins in every measured compute category, with the MI25’s only potential advantage being its slightly different form factor and the absence of display outputs for pure compute nodes.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Radeon VII leads with 13.44 TFLOPS FP32 versus the MI25’s 12.29 TFLOPS, a difference driven by the higher 1750 MHz boost clock despite fewer shading units (3840 vs 4096).

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The Radeon VII delivers 1.02 TB/s over a 4096-bit bus, while the MI25 provides 436.2 GB/s over a 2048-bit bus. The Radeon VII has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards suitable for gaming?

A: The Radeon VII has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a) and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2304, making it technically usable for gaming. The MI25 has no display outputs, so it cannot connect to a monitor.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The MI25 is built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, while the Radeon VII uses TSMC’s 7 nm process. The Radeon VII achieves a transistor density of 40.0M / mm² versus 25.3M / mm² for the MI25.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The MI25 has a higher average benchmark score of 68562, compared to the Radeon VII’s 66004. This is because the Radeon VII’s average includes a lower 3DMark score, while its OpenCL score is much higher.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI25 has a 300 W TDP and suggests a 700 W PSU, while the Radeon VII has a 295 W TDP and suggests a 600 W PSU. Both use dual-slot cooling and 2x 8-pin power connectors.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Radeon VII outperforms the MI25 in every compute metric where both are measured. Its OpenCL score of 91947 is 25.4% higher than the MI25’s 68562, and its memory bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s is more than double. The Radeon VII also benefits from a smaller 7 nm die, higher boost clock, and full display outputs, making it the more versatile and powerful card overall.

The MI25 is not without justification for specific deployments. Its 16 GB of HBM2 memory matches the Radeon VII, and its lack of display outputs may be preferable for headless server installations where video connectors are irrelevant. Its smaller physical footprint (267 mm vs 280 mm) and identical dual-slot width could simplify integration into certain chassis. For workloads that are capacity-bound rather than bandwidth-bound, the MI25 remains functionally adequate, and its 90th percentile standing among all GPUs indicates it is still a capable compute accelerator.

However, for anyone choosing between these two cards for general compute, the Radeon VII is the superior option by a wide margin. Its higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, doubled memory bandwidth, and lower PSU recommendation (600 W vs 700 W) make it more efficient per watt. The only scenarios where the MI25 might be preferred are those requiring a card with no display outputs or a slightly shorter length, assuming the 5 W TDP difference is negligible. The Radeon VII’s launch MSRP was 699 USD, and its benchmark results justify that positioning as a premium compute product. The MI25, with no listed MSRP, competes more on form factor than raw performance. For most users, the Radeon VII is the clear choice; the MI25 is a niche alternative for specific server configurations.