AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 or the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs in the database. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and neither product registers a win in any comparison category. This absence of measured performance data means that any direct performance comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences documented in the database, rather than on empirical test results.

Without benchmark scores, the most meaningful quantitative comparison comes from the raw compute capabilities. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 1.99 times the 24.02 TFLOPS offered by the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. In FP16 compute, the gap widens dramatically: the MI300 produces 383.0 TFLOPS using an 8:1 ratio, while the N1X 40SM produces 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. That represents a 15.9-fold advantage for the AMD part in FP16 throughput, though the different ratio conventions mean the comparison is not strictly apples-to-apples. The MI300 achieves its FP16 figure through the 8:1 shader ratio, whereas the N1X 40SM processes FP16 at the same rate as FP32.

Texture rate further illustrates the divide. The MI300 sustains 1,496.0 GTexel/s compared to 750.7 GTexel/s for the N1X 40SM, a 1.99x margin that aligns closely with the FP32 difference. Pixel rate shows a different story, as the MI300 records 0 MPixel/s due to having no ROPs, while the N1X 40SM produces 93.84 GPixel/s from its 40 ROP units. Memory bandwidth is another area of decisive separation, with the MI300 reaching 6.55 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3 interface versus 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus for the N1X 40SM. That is a 24.0x bandwidth advantage for the AMD accelerator.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip based on Blackwell 2.0 architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the similarities end there. The MI300 is a discrete accelerator with a die size of 1017 mm² and 153,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The N1X 40SM, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a die size of 382 mm² and an unknown transistor count, so no density figure is recorded.

The MI300 belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation and is classified as a data center compute product, with no display outputs and a predecessor of FirePro Data Center. The N1X 40SM comes from the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation and includes a single HDMI output, making it suitable for display purposes despite being classified as an IGP. The MI300 has no production status listed, while the N1X 40SM is marked as Active.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 6.55 TB/s bandwidth, a configuration aimed at high-throughput compute workloads. The N1X 40SM also has 128 GB of memory, but it is LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, a much lower-bandwidth configuration typical of integrated parts. The MI300's memory clock is 1600 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, while the N1X 40SM runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. Despite the higher effective data rate per pin on the NVIDIA part, the vastly wider bus on the AMD part delivers the overall bandwidth advantage.

Clock behavior also diverges. The MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz. The N1X 40SM has a lower base of 741 MHz but a higher boost of 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part therefore relies on higher boost frequencies to compensate for its smaller shader count, while the AMD part uses a larger number of shading units at more modest clocks.

The MI300 contains 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, RT cores, or tensor cores. The N1X 40SM has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. This reflects the different target workloads: the MI300 is a pure compute accelerator with no graphics or ray tracing hardware, while the N1X 40SM includes graphics, ray tracing, and tensor processing capabilities.

Power and physical specifications are equally distinct. The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and requires a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The N1X 40SM has an unknown TDP, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU, consistent with its IGP classification. The MI300 measures 267 mm in length (10.5 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches), while the N1X 40SM has no recorded dimensions. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, as does the N1X 40SM, though the latter is an IGP and thus has no expansion slot width listed.

FAQ

Q: Which product has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 1.99 times the 24.02 TFLOPS of the NVIDIA N1X 40SM.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: Both have 128 GB of memory, but the MI300 uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 6.55 TB/s bandwidth, while the N1X 40SM uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300 has 24.0 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part support graphics and ray tracing?

A: Yes, the N1X 40SM includes 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, 160 tensor cores, and one HDMI output. The MI300 has no ROPs, RT cores, or tensor cores, and provides no display outputs.

Q: What are the process nodes and foundries for each?

A: Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture.

Q: Which product has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz, compared to 1700 MHz for the AMD MI300. The MI300 has a higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 741 MHz for the N1X 40SM.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU. The N1X 40SM has an unknown TDP, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 | NVIDIA N1X 40SM |

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

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | GB20B |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Radeon Instinct (MIx) | Blackwell IGP (N1x) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 2346 MHz |

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

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 14,080 | 5,120 |

| TMUs | 880 | 320 |

| ROPs | 0 | 40 |

| RT Cores | null | 40 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 160 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 93.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 750.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.87 TFLOPS | 24.02 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 383.0 TFLOPS (8:1) | 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | unknown |

| Slot Width | null | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | null |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI |

| Production Status | null | Active |

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

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | null |

The Verdict

The data presents two products engineered for entirely different purposes. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 is a discrete data center accelerator with massive compute throughput, a 600 W TDP, and no display capability. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is an integrated graphics processor with display output, ray tracing, and tensor cores, designed for a lower-power, space-constrained environment.

For raw compute workloads, the MI300 is the clear choice based on the recorded specifications. It delivers 1.99 times the FP32 performance, 24.0 times the memory bandwidth, and 1.99 times the texture rate of the N1X 40SM. Its 128 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus is built for data-center-scale problems, and its FP16 throughput of 383.0 TFLOPS dwarfs the N1X 40SM's 24.02 TFLOPS. The MI300 also has a larger die (1017 mm² versus 382 mm²), more transistors (153,000 million versus unknown), and a higher base clock (1000 MHz versus 741 MHz).

The N1X 40SM, however, offers capabilities the MI300 lacks entirely. It has 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores, plus an HDMI output, making it suitable for graphics, ray tracing, and AI inference tasks that require display or rendering functionality. Its boost clock of 2346 MHz is substantially higher than the MI300's 1700 MHz, and its 93.84 GPixel/s pixel rate stands in contrast to the MI300's 0 MPixel/s. The N1X 40SM also uses no power connectors and has an unknown TDP, indicating a much lower power envelope than the MI300's 600 W requirement.

Release timing also differs, with the MI300 dated 2023-01-03 and the N1X 40SM dated 2026-05-31, placing them in different product cycles. The MI300's predecessor is listed as FirePro Data Center, while the N1X 40SM has no predecessor recorded.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the MI300 is built for compute density and memory bandwidth, while the N1X 40SM is built for integrated functionality with graphics and tensor acceleration. Users requiring maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, vast memory bandwidth, or large memory capacity should select the MI300. Users needing display output, ray tracing, or tensor cores in a compact integrated package should select the N1X 40SM. Without benchmark scores, these specification differences constitute the entirety of the comparison, and they point to two non-overlapping product categories.