AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs NVIDIA L4 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two accelerators. The NVIDIA L4 wins the only head-to-head test recorded in the database, and it wins by a massive margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the L4 scores 140838 against the MI25's 68562, a 105.4% advantage. That is not a marginal victory; it is a complete generational sweep in raw compute throughput.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its only entry, the same Geekbench OpenCL test, places it far behind. The MI25's average benchmark score sits at 68562, which puts it at the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The L4, by contrast, sits at the 95th percentile with an average of 131072. Both are above-average cards, but the L4 operates in a different performance class entirely.

For use-case planning, the data suggests the L4 is the choice for any workload that stresses OpenCL compute. The MI25 retains a niche only where its specific hardware characteristics, such as HBM2 memory with higher bandwidth, might matter for memory-bound tasks. But in the recorded compute benchmarks, the L4 simply dominates. The MI25's 436.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is higher than the L4's 300.1 GB/s, so memory-heavy workloads could theoretically favor the AMD card, but no benchmark in the database confirms this. The only measured outcome is a decisive L4 victory.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA L4 averages 131072 across all recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 averages 68562. The L4 also achieves the 95th percentile among all GPUs versus the MI25's 90th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the L4 scores 140838 and the MI25 scores 68562. That is a 105.4% delta, meaning the L4 is more than twice as fast in this specific workload.

Q: Do these cards support the same API levels?

A: No. The L4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI25 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The L4 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: Which card is closer to its nearest rivals?

A: The MI25 sits within 2% of its nearest rivals. It is 0.4% behind the Intel Arc A770, 0.6% behind the NVIDIA CMP 90HX, 1.9% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, and 2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000. The L4 is 0.7% behind the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti and 3.1% behind several others, so its rival gap is slightly larger but still tight.

Q: What generation gap exists between these products?

A: The L4 is from the Server Ada (Lxx) generation, released in March 2023, and remains in active production. The MI25 is from the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation, released in June 2017, and is now end-of-life. The L4 is six years newer and built on a newer architecture.

Q: Is the MI25 competitive in any recorded metric?

A: In the database, the MI25 does not win any benchmark. Its only recorded score is the Geekbench OpenCL result where it trails by 105.4%. Its memory bandwidth is higher on paper, but no benchmark result confirms an advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head comparison between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The result is unambiguous. The NVIDIA L4 scores 140838, and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68562. The delta is 105.4%, meaning the L4 delivers more than double the OpenCL performance.

To put that in perspective, the L4's raw score places it in the company of the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, which averages 131938, a 0.7% gap. The L4 is also within 3.2% of the RTX 4000 Ada Generation, the A10M, and the Radeon PRO W6800. These are all modern, high-end accelerators. The MI25, by comparison, sits alongside the Intel Arc A770 at 68809, a 0.4% gap, and the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at 69000, a 0.6% gap. The MI25's peers are older or mid-range parts.

The FP32 compute figures reinforce the benchmark result. The L4 delivers 30.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The MI25 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS. That is a 2.46x raw compute advantage for the L4, closely matching the 105.4% OpenCL delta. The L4 also handles FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with 30.29 TFLOPS, while the MI25's FP16 is 24.58 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. Even in FP16, the L4 leads by a meaningful margin, though the MI25's ratio means it processes two FP16 operations per clock.

The pixel and texture rates tell a similar story. The L4 produces 163.2 GPixel/s and 489.6 GTexel/s. The MI25 produces 96.00 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s. The L4 leads by 70% in pixel throughput and 27.5% in texture throughput. These are secondary metrics for compute-focused cards, but they confirm that the L4 is faster across the board in the recorded specifications.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA L4 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 300.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD MI25 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 436.2 GB/s. The MI25 has higher memory bandwidth despite having less capacity and an older memory type. This is the one specification where the AMD card is clearly superior.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The L4 has a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost clock of 2040 MHz. The MI25 has a base clock of 1400 MHz and a boost clock of 1500 MHz. The L4's boost clock is 36% higher, despite its lower base clock. Memory clocks also differ: the L4 runs at 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective, while the MI25 runs at 852 MHz with 1704 Mbps effective.

Compute unit counts favor the L4. The L4 has 7424 shading units, 240 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 60 RT cores, and 240 tensor cores. The MI25 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no RT cores and no tensor cores. The L4 has 81% more shading units and 25% more ROPs, though the MI25 has 6.7% more TMUs.

Power requirements are dramatically different. The L4 has a TDP of 72 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI25 has a TDP of 300 W, requires two 8-pin connectors, and needs a 700 W PSU. The L4 uses 76% less power. Physical dimensions also differ: the L4 is a single-slot card at 169 mm long and 56 mm high, while the MI25 is dual-slot at 267 mm long and 111 mm high.

Bus interfaces differ as well. The L4 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the MI25 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Neither card has display outputs. The L4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MI25 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Vulkan support is 1.4 on the L4 versus 1.3 on the MI25.

Architecture Differences

The L4 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture using the AD104 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. It contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The MI25 uses the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, giving a density of 25.3 million per square millimeter.

The process node difference is stark. The L4's 5 nm node allows nearly three times the transistor density of the MI25's 14 nm node, while using a smaller die. The L4 packs 35.8 billion transistors into 294 mm², while the MI25 fits 12.5 billion into 495 mm². This explains the L4's massive compute advantage at a fraction of the power draw.

Architectural features diverge sharply. The L4 includes 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores, dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI workloads. The MI25 has neither, relying entirely on its GCN compute units for all processing. The L4's Ada Lovelace generation is designed for modern server workloads, with features that support the latest API standards. The MI25's GCN 5.0 is from 2017, predating the current generation by six years.

The L4's FP16 support is 1:1 with FP32, meaning it processes both at 30.29 TFLOPS. The MI25's FP16 is 2:1, delivering 24.58 TFLOPS against 12.29 TFLOPS FP32. This suggests the L4 is more efficient at FP16 workloads, while the MI25's 2:1 ratio indicates it can double its FP32 throughput when operating in FP16 mode.

Production status also differs. The L4 is active, with a predecessor in Server Ampere and a successor in Server Hopper. The MI25 is end-of-life, with a predecessor in FirePro Data Center and no recorded successor. The L4 represents the current generation of server accelerators, while the MI25 is a legacy product.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion. The NVIDIA L4 is the superior accelerator in every recorded benchmark and nearly every specification. It delivers 105.4% higher OpenCL performance, more than double the FP32 compute, and does so while consuming only 72 W against the MI25's 300 W. The L4 also supports newer APIs, includes dedicated RT and tensor cores, and uses a modern 5 nm process.

The MI25's only advantages are memory bandwidth and texture units. Its 436.2 GB/s HBM2 bandwidth exceeds the L4's 300.1 GB/s by 45%, and its 256 TMUs edge out the L4's 240. For workloads that are purely memory-bound, the MI25 could theoretically perform relatively better, but no benchmark in the database confirms this. The MI25's 16 GB capacity is also less than the L4's 24 GB.

For anyone choosing between these two, the L4 is the practical pick for modern compute workloads. It is faster, smaller, cooler, and still in production. The MI25 is an end-of-life product from 2017 with a 90th percentile performance ranking. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A770 and NVIDIA CMP 90HX, both of which sit within 1% of its score, confirming its mid-tier status. The L4, by contrast, trades blows with the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti and RTX 4000 Ada Generation, placing it in high-end territory.

The verdict is straightforward: the L4 wins the head-to-head, wins the architecture comparison, and wins on efficiency. The MI25 should only be considered if legacy software requires GCN 5.0 or if the higher memory bandwidth is a specific requirement that no benchmark in the database validates. Otherwise, the L4 is the data-backed choice.