AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 and AMD Radeon PRO W7400 occupy entirely separate segments of the accelerator market, and the recorded data confirms they are not direct competitors. The MI300 is a data-center compute accelerator built for massive parallel workloads, while the W7400 is a professional workstation graphics card. Neither product has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rival data in the database, so direct performance comparisons cannot be made. Their respective percentile rankings against all GPUs are identical at 50, indicating both sit at the median of the database's tracked products, but this does not imply performance parity. The MI300 should be selected for high-throughput compute tasks requiring enormous memory capacity, while the W7400 is the appropriate choice for professional graphics output and display connectivity. The data shows no overlap in their intended use cases: the MI300 has no display outputs, whereas the W7400 provides four DisplayPort connections.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators use different architectures from AMD. The MI300 is built on CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-focused architecture, while the W7400 uses RDNA 3.0, the graphics-oriented architecture. The chip names reflect this split: the MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip, and the W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The MI300 belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation, while the W7400 is part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The manufacturing processes differ significantly: the MI300 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the W7400 uses a 6 nm process from the same foundry. Transistor counts show the scale difference, with the MI300 featuring 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The W7400 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2M per mm². The MI300's predecessor is the FirePro Data Center series, while the W7400 succeeds the Radeon Pro Vega line. The MI300 was released on 2023-01-03, and the W7400 on 2025-08-02. The W7400 is marked as Active in production status, while the MI300 has no production status recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results between these two products. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, meaning neither accelerator has a direct benchmark victory over the other in the database. Without benchmark scores, the relative performance must be interpreted through architectural and specification differences. The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 383.0 TFLOPS of FP16 compute with an 8:1 ratio, while the W7400 provides 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 and 7.885 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The MI300's FP32 output is over six times higher than the W7400's, and its FP16 output is dramatically higher, though the comparison is complicated by the different FP16 ratio implementations. The MI300 supports 128 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and 6.55 TB/s bandwidth, while the W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300's memory bandwidth is roughly 38 times higher than the W7400's, a massive gap driven by the HBM3 implementation versus GDDR6. Clock speeds show the opposite trend: the W7400 has a lower base clock of 330 MHz but a boost of 1100 MHz, while the MI300 has a 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well, with the MI300 running at 1600 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective speed, and the W7400 at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective. The MI300's texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s for the W7400, a twelve-fold difference. The W7400 has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, while the MI300 is recorded at 0 MPixel/s, reflecting the MI300's lack of rasterization output stages. The MI300 lists 0 ROPs, while the W7400 has 64 ROPs.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has more shading units?

A: The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, while the W7400 has 1,792 shading units. The MI300 also has 880 texture mapping units versus 112 for the W7400.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores, while the MI300 has no recorded ray tracing core count.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and requires a 1000 W suggested power supply with 2x 8-pin power connectors. The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and a 250 W suggested power supply, with no power connectors needed.

Q: What display outputs does each card provide?

A: The W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The MI300 has no display outputs.

Q: Which card has a larger memory capacity?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory, while the W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. The memory bus widths are 8192-bit for the MI300 and 128-bit for the W7400.

Q: What API support does each card offer?

A: The W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 has no recorded API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 47.87 TFLOPS is several times higher than the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 383.0 TFLOPS dwarfs the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. The MI300 also dominates in memory capacity and bandwidth, offering 128 GB of HBM3 with 6.55 TB/s bandwidth, which suits large dataset processing. The texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s indicates strong texel processing capability. The MI300's 5 nm process and higher transistor count of 153,000 million enable its large compute configuration, and its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides newer bus connectivity. The MI300 is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that fit within its 600 W power envelope and 267 mm length.

The W7400 wins in graphics and display functionality. It provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, enabling multi-display professional work, while the MI300 has no display outputs at all. The W7400 has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, confirming its rasterization capability, while the MI300 has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the MI300's recorded specifications. Its smaller 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width make it a compact single-slot card, compared to the MI300's 267 mm length and 111 mm height. The W7400's 55 W TDP and lack of power connectors allow deployment in systems with modest power delivery, and its 250 W suggested power supply requirement is substantially lower than the MI300's 1000 W requirement. The W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling modern graphics APIs, whereas the MI300 has no recorded API support. The W7400 is the appropriate choice for graphics rendering, display output, and ray-traced workloads.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification. The MI300 uses a 5 nm process, while the W7400 uses 6 nm. Transistor count is 153,000 million for the MI300 versus 13,300 million for the W7400. Die size is 1017 mm² for the MI300 and 204 mm² for the W7400. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm². Base clocks are 1000 MHz for the MI300 and 330 MHz for the W7400. Boost clocks are 1700 MHz versus 1100 MHz. Memory clocks are 1600 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective for the MI300, and 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective for the W7400. Memory size is 128 GB HBM3 versus 8 GB GDDR6. Bus width is 8192-bit versus 128-bit. Memory bandwidth is 6.55 TB/s versus 172.8 GB/s. Shading units are 14,080 versus 1,792. TMUs are 880 versus 112. ROPs are 0 versus 64. Ray tracing cores are not recorded for the MI300, while the W7400 has 28. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32 is 47.87 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS. FP16 is 383.0 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio versus 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. TDP is 600 W versus 55 W. Power connectors are 2x 8-pin for the MI300, while the W7400 has none. Suggested PSU is 1000 W versus 250 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are none versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300 has no recorded DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, while the W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Dimensions differ: the MI300 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, while the W7400 is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide. The slot width is not recorded for the MI300, while the W7400 is single-slot. Release dates are 2023-01-03 for the MI300 and 2025-08-02 for the W7400. Neither product has a recorded launch MSRP, and both have a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs.