AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 and AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 are separated by nearly eight years of GPU architecture evolution, and the benchmark data reflects that chasm. In the single available head-to-head test, the RTX 5090 delivers a 387.7% higher Geekbench OpenCL score than the MI25 (334,370 vs. 68,562), a margin that dwarfs the typical performance gaps seen between adjacent generations. The MI25, an end-of-life data center part from 2017, sits in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 5090 ranks in the 92nd percentile, but the raw score difference shows how much the high end has moved.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is unambiguous. The RTX 5090 scores 334,370 points against the MI25’s 68,562 points, a delta of 387.7% favoring the NVIDIA part. This is not a marginal win; it is a generational obliteration. To put it in context, the RTX 5090’s nearest rivals in the aggregate benchmark database are the Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (79,605 average score, 0.3% behind) and the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (79,396, 0.6% behind), meaning the 5090’s OpenCL result is over four times higher than its closest competitors’ average scores. The MI25, meanwhile, sits within 2% of the Intel Arc A770 (68,809) and NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000), placing it in a completely different performance tier.

The delta of 387.7% is the single most important number in this comparison. It means that in a compute-heavy OpenCL workload, the RTX 5090 completes roughly five times the work in the same time window as the MI25. The MI25’s 68,562 score is close to the RTX 5090’s Passmark G2D score of 1,413 — though that is a different test and not directly comparable — which illustrates how far behind the older part is in raw compute throughput. There are no benchmark categories where the MI25 wins; the head-to-head table shows 1 win for the RTX 5090 and 0 for the MI25.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is foundational. The RTX 5090 uses the GB202 chip built on TSMC’s 5 nm process, while the MI25 uses the Vega 10 chip on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm node. The process shrink alone explains much of the efficiency and density advantage: the RTX 5090 packs 92,200 million transistors into a 750 mm² die, yielding a density of 122.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The MI25 has 12,500 million transistors across 495 mm², a density of just 25.3 million per square millimeter — nearly a five-fold difference in packing efficiency.

The RTX 5090 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, while the MI25 uses GCN 5.0. Blackwell 2.0 brings dedicated ray tracing cores (170 of them) and tensor cores (680), features that are entirely absent from the MI25, which lists no RT cores and no tensor cores. The shading unit count tells a similar story: 21,760 shading units on the RTX 5090 versus 4,096 on the MI25. Texture mapping units (680 vs. 256) and ROPs (176 vs. 64) also heavily favor the newer card. The memory subsystems are from different eras: GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus (1.79 TB/s bandwidth) versus HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus (436.2 GB/s). The MI25’s HBM2 provides respectable bandwidth for its time, but the RTX 5090’s 1.79 TB/s is 4.1 times higher.

Clock speeds have also climbed substantially. The RTX 5090 runs at a base of 2017 MHz and boosts to 2407 MHz, while the MI25 is clocked at 1400 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. The FP32 throughput difference — 104.8 TFLOPS vs. 12.29 TFLOPS — is an 8.5-fold gap. In FP16, the RTX 5090 delivers 104.8 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the MI25 achieves 24.58 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the MI25’s FP16 advantage over its own FP32 is halved on the newer architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5090 wins in every measurable category from the data. In compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL, the 387.7% lead is decisive. The RTX 5090’s 32 GB of GDDR7 memory versus the MI25’s 16 GB of HBM2 means it can handle larger datasets without spilling to system memory. The RTX 5090’s ray tracing and tensor cores open up workloads — real-time ray tracing, DLSS-style AI upscaling, and tensor-based compute — that the MI25 cannot accelerate at all. The newer PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, compared to the MI25’s PCIe 3.0 x16, also provides substantially more host bandwidth for data transfer.

The MI25’s strengths are narrower but real for its era. Its HBM2 memory, while slower in aggregate bandwidth, offers a 2048-bit bus that was a differentiator in 2017 for memory-bound compute tasks. The 16 GB capacity at a 300 W TDP — versus the RTX 5090’s 575 W TDP — means the MI25 is a lighter power load, though the RTX 5090 compensates with 8.5 times the FP32 throughput. The MI25 also has display outputs listed as "No outputs," making it purely a compute or server part, whereas the RTX 5090 includes 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, making it usable in a workstation with a monitor attached.

For a modern AI or rendering workload, the RTX 5090 is the only viable choice from this pair. For legacy compute environments that rely on GCN-era optimizations or require a lower power envelope, the MI25 could still function, but the performance gap means any task it can do, the RTX 5090 does faster — typically several times over.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The RTX 5090 has a 5 nm process node (TSMC) versus the MI25’s 14 nm (GlobalFoundries). Transistor count is 92,200 million vs. 12,500 million. Die size is 750 mm² vs. 495 mm². Base clock is 2017 MHz vs. 1400 MHz; boost clock is 2407 MHz vs. 1500 MHz. Memory size is 32 GB vs. 16 GB. Memory type is GDDR7 vs. HBM2. Bus width is 512 bit vs. 2048 bit. Memory bandwidth is 1.79 TB/s vs. 436.2 GB/s. Shading units are 21,760 vs. 4,096. TMUs are 680 vs. 256. ROPs are 176 vs. 64. Ray tracing cores are 170 vs. null. Tensor cores are 680 vs. null. Pixel rate is 423.6 GPixel/s vs. 96.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,636.8 GTexel/s vs. 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 104.8 TFLOPS vs. 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16 is 104.8 TFLOPS vs. 24.58 TFLOPS. TDP is 575 W vs. 300 W. Power connectors are 1x 16-pin vs. 2x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 950 W vs. 700 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 vs. PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1b + 3x DisplayPort 2.1b vs. no outputs. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs. 12 (12_1). Vulkan support is 1.4 vs. 1.3. Dimensions are 304 mm x 137 mm x 40 mm vs. 267 mm x 111 mm (no width listed). Production status is Active vs. End-of-life. Release date is 2025-01-29 vs. 2017-06-26. Launch MSRP for the RTX 5090 is 1,999 USD; the MI25 has no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 5090 in the only shared benchmark?

A: The RTX 5090 scores 334,370 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the MI25’s 68,562, a 387.7% difference.

Q: Does the MI25 have ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The Radeon Instinct MI25 lists null for both RT cores and tensor cores, while the RTX 5090 has 170 RT cores and 680 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 5090 has 32 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus with 1.79 TB/s bandwidth. The MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 436.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX 5090 achieves 122.9 million transistors per mm² on a 5 nm TSMC process, compared to the MI25’s 25.3 million per mm² on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The RTX 5090 is listed as Active, released on 2025-01-29. The MI25 is End-of-life, released on 2017-06-26.

Q: Do either cards support display outputs?

A: The RTX 5090 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The MI25 has no display outputs.