AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs NVIDIA A10M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the NVIDIA A10M is the clear performance leader in this comparison. In the recorded Geekbench OpenCL test, the A10M scores 135,230, which is 97.2% higher than the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25’s 68,562. This is not a marginal victory; the A10M nearly doubles the compute output of the MI25 in this specific workload. The MI25, while still a capable data center card, is firmly in a lower performance tier according to the measurements.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL-based workloads, the A10M is the definitive choice. Its score places it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, while the MI25 sits in the 90th percentile. This difference in percentile, coupled with the massive score gap, means the A10M should be the primary consideration for any workload that is heavily reliant on this type of general compute performance. The MI25, on the other hand, could be a consideration only if the workload is specifically optimized for its unique architecture, but the data here offers no benchmark evidence to support that selection based on raw performance.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their divergent performance profiles. The NVIDIA A10M is based on the Ampere architecture, utilizing the GA102 chip manufactured on an 8 nm process by Samsung. This advanced node allows for a massive transistor count of 28,300 million packed into a 628 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 45.1M / mm².

In contrast, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is built on the older GCN 5.0 architecture, using the Vega 10 chip. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries, which is a larger and less efficient node. The MI25 contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, giving it a much lower transistor density of 25.3M / mm².

The feature sets also diverge significantly. The A10M includes 56 RT Cores and 224 Tensor Cores, which are specialized hardware for ray tracing and AI compute tasks. The MI25 has no such dedicated cores, listing them as null. The A10M also supports newer API standards, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI25 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The A10M’s support for 12 Ultimate indicates a more modern feature set for graphics and compute.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA A10M in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The A10M scores 135,230, which is 97.2% higher than the MI25’s score of 68,562.

Q: Which card has more memory, and what type is it?

A: The NVIDIA A10M has a larger 20 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two?

A: The A10M has a memory bandwidth of 500.2 GB/s, which is higher than the MI25’s 436.2 GB/s.

Q: Considering the transistor and process node, which card is more advanced?

A: The A10M is more advanced, using a smaller 8 nm Samsung process with 28,300 million transistors, whereas the MI25 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 12,500 million transistors.

Q: Does the MI25 support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: The data shows no RT cores and no Tensor cores for the MI25. The NVIDIA A10M is equipped with 56 RT cores and 224 Tensor cores.

Q: Which card is bigger in terms of physical dimensions?

A: Both cards are the same length at 267 mm (10.5 inches). The A10M is marginally taller at 112 mm compared to the MI25’s 111 mm.

Specification Differences

The core specifications show a clear division of strengths. The NVIDIA A10M excels in raw compute and modern features, while the AMD MI25 has a higher texture rate. The following table details the key differences:

• Process Node: A10M is 8 nm, MI25 is 14 nm.
• Transistors: A10M has 28,300 million, MI25 has 12,500 million.
• Die Size: A10M is 628 mm², MI25 is 495 mm².
• Shading Units: A10M has 7168, MI25 has 4096.
• ROPs: A10M has 80, MI25 has 64.
• RT Cores: A10M has 56, MI25 has none.
• Tensor Cores: A10M has 224, MI25 has none.
• FP32 Performance: A10M is 23.44 TFLOPS, MI25 is 12.29 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: A10M is 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1), MI25 is 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1).
• Texture Rate: A10M is 366.2 GTexel/s, MI25 is 384.0 GTexel/s.
• Memory Size: A10M has 20 GB, MI25 has 16 GB.
• Memory Type: A10M uses GDDR6, MI25 uses HBM2.
• Memory Bus: A10M is 320 bit, MI25 is 2048 bit.
• Bandwidth: A10M has 500.2 GB/s, MI25 has 436.2 GB/s.
• TDP: A10M is 150 W, MI25 is 300 W.
• Slot Width: A10M is Single-slot, MI25 is Dual-slot.
• Power Connectors: A10M uses 8-pin EPS, MI25 uses 2x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: A10M suggests 450 W, MI25 suggests 700 W.
• Bus Interface: A10M is PCIe 4.0 x16, MI25 is PCIe 3.0 x16.
• DirectX Support: A10M supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), MI25 supports 12 (12_1).
• Vulkan Support: A10M supports 1.4, MI25 supports 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. This single test provides a comprehensive look at the compute potential of both cards. The NVIDIA A10M achieved a score of 135,230, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scored 68,562. This results in the A10M being the winner by a delta of 97.2%. This is the most significant data point in this comparison, indicating a substantial generational and architectural leap in compute performance.

The A10M’s score of 135,230 is not just higher than the MI25’s; it is also in a different league relative to its nearest rivals. The A10M’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation, scores 135,218, a negligible 0% difference. This positions the A10M in the top echelon of workstation GPUs. The MI25’s score of 68,562 is closer to its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Arc A770 (68,809, -0.4%) and the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000, -0.6%). This confirms that the MI25 is a mid-range performer in the current database, while the A10M is a high-end performer.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA A10M wins in the compute performance category. Its 23.44 TFLOPS FP32 performance is almost double the MI25’s 12.29 TFLOPS, which is the primary reason for its 97.2% lead in the OpenCL test. The A10M also has a higher pixel rate at 130.8 GPixel/s compared to the MI25’s 96.00 GPixel/s, and a higher memory bandwidth of 500.2 GB/s versus 436.2 GB/s. These all contribute to the A10M’s dominance in the recorded benchmark.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 does have a few statistical advantages. Its texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s is higher than the A10M’s 366.2 GTexel/s. This suggests that in workloads that are extremely texture-heavy, the MI25 might have a slight edge, although the overall compute performance so heavily favors the A10M that this is unlikely to be a deciding factor in most applications. The MI25 also has a higher FP16 performance rating of 24.58 TFLOPS compared to the A10M’s 23.44 TFLOPS, but the A10M’s FP16 rating is a 1:1 ratio, suggesting it processes FP16 at the same rate as FP32, while the MI25’s is a 2:1 ratio, meaning it is not a native 1:1 throughput. This gives the MI25 a theoretical advantage in FP16 compute, but the data does not show a benchmark where this advantage is realized. The MI25 also has a wider memory bus (2048 bit vs 320 bit), but the newer GDDR6 memory on the A10M is faster in terms of bandwidth. Overall, the benchmark results point to the A10M as the winner for the vast majority of compute workloads.