AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation outperforms the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 by a substantial margin. In the only head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 146,593 against AMD's 68,562, a delta of 113.8%. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and architectural gap that translates into a clear performance hierarchy.

For users selecting a GPU strictly on the basis of recorded compute performance, the RTX 4000 Ada is the unequivocal choice. Its average benchmark score of 135,218 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the MI25's average of 68,562 sits in the 90th percentile. The NVIDIA card also holds a win count of 1 in the head-to-head tests, versus 0 for AMD.

However, context matters. The MI25 is an end-of-life product from 2017, built on an older architecture, while the RTX 4000 Ada was released in 2023 and remains active in production. The data does not support any scenario where the MI25 wins on raw performance. The RTX 4000 Ada is the pick for anyone prioritizing compute throughput, modern feature support, and efficiency as indicated by power draw and process node. The MI25 might only be relevant for legacy deployment or specialized HBM2 memory needs, but the recorded benchmarks show no performance advantage.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins in every measurable category. It has a higher FP32 throughput at 26.73 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS for the MI25, and it also leads in texture rate (417.6 GTexel/s vs 384.0 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (139.2 GPixel/s vs 96.00 GPixel/s). These are direct compute and rasterization metrics where NVIDIA's advantage is clear.

The MI25 does have a win in memory bandwidth, offering 436.2 GB/s over a 2048-bit bus with HBM2, compared to the RTX 4000 Ada's 360.0 GB/s over a 160-bit bus with GDDR6. This is a narrow victory in one specification, but it does not translate into a benchmark win. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MI25 scores 68,562, which is roughly 47% of the NVIDIA score. Memory bandwidth alone cannot compensate for the massive gap in shading units (4,096 vs 6,144), tensor cores (none vs 192), and ray tracing cores (none vs 48).

The use-case split is therefore straightforward: the RTX 4000 Ada is for general compute, AI workloads (due to tensor cores), and ray-traced rendering. The MI25, with its higher bandwidth, might theoretically suit memory-bound tasks, but the data shows no benchmark evidence of such an advantage. Its FP16 performance of 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is higher than its FP32, but the RTX 4000 Ada matches FP16 at 26.73 TFLOPS, so even there it falls short.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and foundries. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip on a 5 nm process at TSMC, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 uses the Vega 10 chip on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 12,500 million transistors on a larger 495 mm² die. This explains the transistor density gap: 121.8M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 25.3M per mm² for AMD.

Architecturally, the RTX 4000 Ada is based on Ada Lovelace, part of the GeForce 40-series and the Workstation Ada generation. It includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores, features absent from the MI25 entirely. The MI25 is based on GCN 5.0, part of the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation, with no ray tracing or tensor core support. This makes the NVIDIA card fundamentally more capable for modern workloads like real-time ray tracing and AI inference.

Memory configurations also differ sharply. The RTX 4000 Ada has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, while the MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The MI25's wider bus gives it higher bandwidth (436.2 GB/s vs 360.0 GB/s), but the RTX 4000 Ada compensates with a higher effective memory clock (18 Gbps vs 1704 Mbps) and a larger capacity.

Power efficiency is another stark difference. The RTX 4000 Ada has a TDP of 130 W and requires a single 16-pin connector with a suggested 300 W PSU. The MI25 draws 300 W, needs dual 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 700 W PSU. The NVIDIA card delivers more than double the FP32 performance at less than half the power draw, a direct result of the 5 nm process versus 14 nm.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 135,218, placing it in the 95th percentile. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562 on average, in the 90th percentile.

Q: Does the MI25 have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the MI25 offers 436.2 GB/s bandwidth from HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, compared to the RTX 4000 Ada's 360.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus. However, this does not result in a benchmark win.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada scores 146,593, while the MI25 scores 68,562. This represents a delta of 113.8%, meaning the NVIDIA card is more than twice as fast in this test.

Q: Are there any architectural features present in one but not the other?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The MI25 has neither, as it is based on the GCN 5.0 architecture without these dedicated units.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient according to the data?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada has a TDP of 130 W, while the MI25 has a TDP of 300 W. The NVIDIA card achieves higher performance at lower power, indicating significantly better efficiency.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada is listed as active in production, released in August 2023. The MI25 is end-of-life, released in June 2017.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 146,593, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562. The delta is 113.8%, meaning the NVIDIA card is more than twice as fast. This is a massive margin that underscores the generational leap between the two products.

To put this in perspective, the RTX 4000 Ada's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA A10M with an average score of 135,230 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 (-0.1%), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (-0.4%). The MI25's nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A770 at 68,809 (-0.4%), the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at 69,000 (-0.6%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 69,870 (-1.9%). The NVIDIA card sits in a completely different performance tier, roughly 97% higher than the MI25's peer group.

The FP32 compute figures reinforce this gap. The RTX 4000 Ada delivers 26.73 TFLOPS, while the MI25 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS. Even the MI25's FP16 output of 24.58 TFLOPS (at a 2:1 ratio) does not match the RTX 4000 Ada's FP16 of 26.73 TFLOPS (at a 1:1 ratio). In texture rate, the NVIDIA card is ahead at 417.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, and in pixel rate it leads 139.2 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s. Every compute metric favors NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The RTX 4000 Ada uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the MI25 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts are 35,800 million versus 12,500 million, and die sizes are 294 mm² versus 495 mm². The NVIDIA card has a higher transistor density at 121.8M per mm², compared to 25.3M per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds also differ: the RTX 4000 Ada has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost of 2175 MHz, while the MI25 has a base of 1400 MHz and a boost of 1500 MHz. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA versus 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective) for AMD.

Core configurations are distinct as well. The RTX 4000 Ada has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The MI25 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. Memory capacity is 20 GB GDDR6 for NVIDIA versus 16 GB HBM2 for AMD, with bus widths of 160-bit and 2048-bit respectively.

Power requirements differ substantially: the RTX 4000 Ada has a 130 W TDP and a single 16-pin connector, while the MI25 has a 300 W TDP and dual 8-pin connectors. The suggested PSU is 300 W for NVIDIA and 700 W for AMD. The NVIDIA card is single-slot, while the MI25 is dual-slot. The RTX 4000 Ada has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MI25 has no display outputs. Finally, the RTX 4000 Ada uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the MI25 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, and the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, versus DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 for AMD.