AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A versus the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. Both products sit at the 50th percentile in the overall GPU database, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. This means the comparison must rely entirely on architectural and specification data rather than measured performance deltas.

What the recorded data does show is a dramatic divide in raw compute capabilities. The MI300A delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the W7400 produces 7.885 TFLOPS. That places the MI300A at roughly 10.4 times the FP32 throughput of the W7400. In FP16 work, the gap widens further: the MI300A reaches 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1 ratio), while the W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The MI300A's FP16 figure is about 83 times higher than the W7400's.

Texture processing follows a similar pattern. The MI300A sustains 2,553.6 GTexel/s, compared to 123.2 GTexel/s for the W7400, a factor of roughly 20.7. Pixel throughput tells a different story: the MI300A reports 0 MPixel/s due to having no ROPs, while the W7400 manages 70.40 GPixel/s. For any workload that relies on rasterized pixel output, the W7400 is the only one of the two that can operate at all.

Memory bandwidth also diverges sharply. The MI300A moves 10.3 TB/s across an 8192-bit HBM3 interface, whereas the W7400 manages 172.8 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 bus. That is a 59.6-fold difference in bandwidth. Capacity differs from 192 GB on the MI300A to 8 GB on the W7400.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 6 nm node. The codename for the W7400 is Hotpink Bonefish. The MI300A belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation, while the W7400 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

Transistor counts differ enormously. The MI300A packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The W7400 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, for a density of 65.2 million per mm². The MI300A die is roughly 5 times larger and carries about 11.5 times more transistors.

Compute unit composition also separates the two. The MI300A has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and no ROPs. The W7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI300A lists no ray tracing cores, while the W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores. Neither product lists tensor cores in the database.

The MI300A memory runs at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective data rate. The W7400 memory runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective. Both use fast memory, but the MI300A's HBM3 stack and 8192-bit bus deliver far more aggregate bandwidth than the W7400's GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Power and physical design reflect their different missions. The MI300A draws up to 750 W and ships as an OAM Module with no display outputs. The W7400 consumes 55 W, fits a single slot, measures 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, and provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The database suggests a 1150 W power supply for the MI300A and a 250 W unit for the W7400. Neither card requires auxiliary power connectors.

The bus interfaces differ as well: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300A versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7400. The W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists no API support data in the database.

Release dates place the MI300A in December 2023 and the W7400 in August 2025. The MI300A's predecessor is listed as FirePro Data Center, while the W7400 succeeds Radeon Pro Vega. Both products have no successor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The MI300A delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400. The MI300A is approximately 10.4 times ahead.

Q: Can either card output to displays?

A: Only the W7400. It has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The MI300A lists no display outputs and is designed as an OAM Module for data center deployment.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI300A has 192 GB of HBM3 memory. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. The MI300A offers 24 times the capacity.

Q: Does either card include ray tracing hardware?

A: The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores. The MI300A lists no ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: Why does the MI300A have a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate?

A: The MI300A has 0 ROPs. Without ROPs, it cannot perform the pixel output operations that the W7400 handles at 70.40 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each card?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested 1150 W power supply. The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W with a suggested 250 W power supply.

Specification Differences

| Specification | MI300A | W7400 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 13,300 million |

| Die size | 1017 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor density | 150.4M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 330 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2100 MHz | 1100 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2525 MHz | 1350 MHz |

| Memory size | 192 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 10.3 TB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Shading units | 19,456 | 1,792 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 112 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray tracing cores | None listed | 28 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 70.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 123.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 7.885 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 55 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX support | None listed | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL support | None listed | 4.6 |

| Vulkan support | None listed | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm |

| Release date | 2023-12-05 | 2025-08-02 |

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two products engineered for completely separate roles. The MI300A is a data center accelerator with massive compute throughput, enormous memory capacity, and no display path. The W7400 is a compact workstation card with display outputs, ray tracing support, and a power envelope suitable for a desktop system.

Benchmark results are absent for both, so the verdict rests on specifications. The MI300A wins every metric related to raw compute, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity. Its FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS, its memory bandwidth is 10.3 TB/s, and its memory capacity is 192 GB. These figures position it for large-scale compute workloads that can consume its full 750 W envelope.

The W7400 wins on practical deployment flexibility. It outputs to four DisplayPort 2.1 connections, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and fits in a single slot with a 55 W TDP. Its 64 ROPs enable pixel processing at 70.40 GPixel/s, something the MI300A cannot do at all with its 0 ROPs. The W7400 also includes 28 ray tracing cores, which the MI300A lacks entirely.

The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16 for host connectivity, while the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300A is fabricated on a smaller 5 nm node with a transistor density of 150.4M per mm², compared to the W7400's 6 nm node and 65.2M per mm² density.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins in compute-heavy environments. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS and FP16 throughput of 653.7 TFLOPS suit workloads that scale with raw arithmetic capability. Its 10.3 TB/s memory bandwidth and 192 GB capacity support large datasets that would not fit in the W7400's 8 GB frame buffer. The 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate indicates substantial fill capability for compute-oriented texture processing. The 750 W TDP and OAM Module form factor signal a rack-mounted data center design.

The W7400 wins in workstation and display-oriented tasks. Its four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs enable multi-monitor setups. Its 64 ROPs and 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate allow actual rasterization work. The 28 ray tracing cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which the MI300A cannot offer. Its 55 W TDP and single-slot dimensions make it suitable for compact systems with a 250 W suggested power supply. API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means the W7400 can run standard graphics applications, whereas the MI300A lists no API compatibility in the database.

The MI300A's 1,216 TMUs and 19,456 shading units dwarf the W7400's 112 TMUs and 1,792 shading units in raw count. The W7400 counters with a higher memory clock in effective terms at 10.8 Gbps versus 10.1 Gbps, though the MI300A's bus width makes that comparison moot for aggregate bandwidth.

Release timing also separates them: the MI300A arrived in December 2023, while the W7400 appeared in August 2025. The MI300A traces its lineage to FirePro Data Center, and the W7400 follows Radeon Pro Vega. Both represent AMD silicon, but they target different ends of the product spectrum with no overlap in physical design, power requirements, or intended use cases.