AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for these two accelerators. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 and the NVIDIA N1 20SM have not been tested against each other in any shared workload, so there are no direct performance deltas to report. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile in the database's overall GPU ranking, but that percentile is based on their respective peer groups, not on any direct comparison between the two.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 383.0 TFLOPS of FP16 compute (at an 8:1 ratio). The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 and 12.01 TFLOPS of FP16 (at a 1:1 ratio). In raw throughput terms, the AMD part is roughly 4x ahead in FP32 and roughly 32x ahead in FP16 peak rates, but these are theoretical peak figures, not measured benchmark scores. The database shows no actual workload results for either device, so these peaks remain the only quantitative performance indicators available.

Texture and pixel throughput follow a similar pattern. The MI300 posts 1,496.0 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, against 375.4 GTexel/s for the N1 20SM, a 4x margin. Pixel rate flips in the other direction: the MI300 is recorded at 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the N1 20SM delivers 56.30 GPixel/s. The AMD accelerator is not designed for rasterized graphics output, which makes its pixel rate effectively zero. The NVIDIA part, despite being an integrated graphics processor, has 24 ROPs and a real pixel pipeline.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive split. The MI300 reaches 6.55 TB/s across an 8192-bit HBM3 bus, while the N1 20SM reaches 273.2 GB/s across a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus. That is a 24x bandwidth advantage for the AMD part. Both devices carry 128 GB of memory, but the type and bus width are entirely different classes of implementation.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip at TSMC's 5 nm process. The die measures 1017 mm² and packs 153,000 million transistors, for a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². It is a discrete accelerator in the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation, with a predecessor listed as FirePro Data Center. It uses 2x 8-pin power connectors and has a 600 W TDP, with a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The card is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, and it has no display outputs.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on the GB20B chip, also at TSMC's 5 nm process. The die is 382 mm², and transistor count is listed as unknown in the database. It is part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation and carries a production status of Active. It is an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors and no listed TDP. It has a single HDMI display output. Its APIs are listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which indicates this is not a general-purpose consumer graphics part.

The shader configurations are fundamentally different. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. It has no dedicated ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The N1 20SM has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, plus 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part includes hardware for ray tracing and tensor workloads, while the AMD part relies entirely on its massive shader array and compute-oriented CDNA design.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI300 has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 1700 MHz boost clock. The N1 20SM has a 741 MHz base clock and a 2346 MHz boost clock. The NVIDIA part runs at a lower base frequency but boosts substantially higher. Memory clocks are 1600 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective) for the AMD HBM3 and 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA LPDDR5X. The AMD part achieves its bandwidth through an 8192-bit bus, while the NVIDIA part uses a 256-bit bus with faster per-pin data rates.

Both parts use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, so host connectivity is identical. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 peak of 47.87 TFLOPS and FP16 peak of 383.0 TFLOPS place it far ahead of the N1 20SM's 12.01 TFLOPS in both precisions. The MI300 also holds a 4x lead in texture fill rate (1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s) and a 24x lead in memory bandwidth (6.55 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s). These are the metrics that matter for dense numerical workloads, large model inference, and memory-bound data processing. The 128 GB HBM3 pool on the MI300 is served by a bus eight times wider than the N1 20SM's LPDDR5X interface.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins in areas the MI300 does not address at all. It has 24 ROPs and a 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate, whereas the MI300 is recorded at 0 MPixel/s with no ROPs. The N1 20SM has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, neither of which exist on the MI300's spec sheet. It has a display output (1x HDMI), while the MI300 has no outputs. The N1 20SM also boosts to 2346 MHz, well above the MI300's 1700 MHz boost, which reflects its integrated, lower-power design. For any workload that requires rasterization, ray tracing, or display output, the MI300 is not a participant.

The N1 20SM's FP16 figure is 12.01 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput. The MI300's FP16 is 383.0 TFLOPS but at an 8:1 ratio, which indicates it is achieved through specialized hardware paths rather than general-purpose shader execution. In workloads that need true 1:1 FP16 throughput, the NVIDIA part's architecture is more straightforward, though its absolute throughput is far lower.

The MI300 is a 600 W discrete accelerator requiring a 1000 W PSU and 2x 8-pin connectors. The N1 20SM is an IGP with no power connectors and no listed TDP. That makes the NVIDIA part suitable for systems where power delivery and physical space are constrained, while the AMD part is designed for dedicated compute nodes.

The Verdict

The data separates these two devices cleanly. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 is a high-throughput compute accelerator with a 600 W TDP, 128 GB of HBM3, and peak FP32 and FP16 figures that dwarf the NVIDIA part. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is an integrated processor with a 128 GB LPDDR5X pool, 20 ray tracing cores, 80 tensor cores, and a real display output. They are not substitutes for each other.

For workloads built around raw numerical throughput, large memory bandwidth, and massive on-chip data movement, the MI300 is the only choice between the two. Its 6.55 TB/s bandwidth and 383.0 TFLOPS FP16 peak are in a different class from the N1 20SM's 273.2 GB/s and 12.01 TFLOPS. The MI300's 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs give it a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s, which the N1 20SM cannot approach.

For workloads that need graphics output, ray tracing, or tensor cores in an integrated package, the N1 20SM is the only option. It has 24 ROPs, a 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate, 20 RT cores, 80 tensor cores, and an HDMI output. The MI300 has none of those. The N1 20SM also requires no external power connectors and has no listed TDP, so it fits into designs where the MI300's 600 W envelope and 2x 8-pin connectors would be impossible.

The release dates differ by over three years: the MI300 launched on January 3, 2023, while the N1 20SM has a recorded release date of May 31, 2026. The MI300's predecessor is the FirePro Data Center line, while the N1 20SM has no predecessor listed. The MI300 is a 267 mm card, while the N1 20SM is an IGP with no dimensions recorded. The database shows no benchmark scores for either device and no nearest rivals, so all conclusions here rest on the recorded specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both parts have 128 GB of memory?

A: Yes, both have 128 GB, but the MI300 uses HBM3 with a 6.55 TB/s bandwidth, while the N1 20SM uses LPDDR5X with a 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 20SM have any features the MI300 lacks?

A: Yes, the N1 20SM has 24 ROPs, a 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate, 20 ray tracing cores, 80 tensor cores, and a 1x HDMI display output. The MI300 has 0 ROPs, no listed RT or tensor cores, and no display outputs.

Q: What process node are both chips built on?

A: Both are built on TSMC's 5 nm process.

Q: What is the power requirement for each part?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP and uses 2x 8-pin power connectors with a 1000 W suggested PSU. The N1 20SM has no listed TDP and no power connectors.

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM boosts to 2346 MHz, while the AMD MI300 boosts to 1700 MHz.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 | NVIDIA N1 20SM |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | GB20B |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 6.55 TB/s | 273.2 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1600 MHz, 6.4 Gbps effective | 1067 MHz, 8.5 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 14,080 | 2,560 |

| TMUs | 880 | 160 |

| ROPs | 0 | 24 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | null | 20 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 80 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 56.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 375.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.87 TFLOPS | 12.01 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 383.0 TFLOPS (8:1) | 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | unknown |

| Slot Width | null | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI |

| DirectX | null | N/A |

| OpenGL | null | N/A |

| Vulkan | null | N/A |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | null |

| Production Status | null | Active |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2026-05-31 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Data Center | null |