AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two accelerators is unusual: there are no direct head-to-head benchmark scores, no average benchmark scores, and no nearest rival entries. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero. Wins are zero for both sides. This makes a conventional performance comparison impossible, so the analysis must rely on the architectural and specification differences that are present in the database.

What the data does show is a massive gap in raw compute capability. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS. That is roughly 8.5 times more FP32 compute on the AMD side. In FP16, the MI300A reaches 653.7 TFLOPS using an 8:1 ratio, compared to 9.609 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio on the NVIDIA. The margin is even larger in mixed-precision workloads, though the ratio difference means the comparison is not strictly apples-to-apples.

Texture throughput follows the same pattern. The MI300A achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the N1 16SM manages 300.3 GTexel/s. That is an 8.5x advantage in texture rate, consistent with the shading unit count: 19,456 shading units versus 2,048. The AMD part also has 1,216 texture mapping units versus 128 on the NVIDIA. Pixel rate is the one place the NVIDIA part has a recorded figure, 56.30 GPixel/s, while the MI300A lists 0 MPixel/s, effectively no pixel output capability.

Memory bandwidth is another enormous gap. The MI300A has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s. That is roughly 37.7 times more bandwidth on the AMD accelerator. Effective memory speed is 10.1 Gbps on the MI300A versus 8.5 Gbps on the N1 16SM. Clock speeds are closer: the MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz, the N1 16SM boosts to 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part actually has a higher boost clock, but its far smaller execution resource pool means that does not translate into higher throughput.

The MI300A also has a significantly larger die. Its 1017 mm² silicon hosts 153,000 million transistors on TSMC 5 nm, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The N1 16SM die is 382 mm², with transistor count listed as unknown. The AMD part is a dedicated accelerator module with an OAM slot width and no display outputs. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with a single HDMI output and an active production status.

The Verdict

The database positions these two parts in completely different segments. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A is a high-throughput data center accelerator built for massive parallel compute, with 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, 10.3 TB/s of memory bandwidth, and 192 GB of HBM3. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is an integrated graphics processor with 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32, 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and 128 GB of LPDDR5X. Any workload that scales with raw compute or memory bandwidth will favor the AMD part by an order of magnitude.

The N1 16SM has a few structural advantages: it is an active production part, it has display output capability with 1x HDMI, and it operates at a higher boost clock of 2346 MHz. It also has 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, features the MI300A does not list. But these features serve different purposes. The MI300A has no RT core count and no tensor core count recorded, and its pixel rate is listed as zero. It is not designed for graphics output or ray-traced rendering.

Who should pick which comes down to the workload. The MI300A is for compute-heavy data center tasks where FP32 and FP16 throughput, massive memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth matter. The N1 16SM is for systems needing integrated graphics with modest compute, some ray tracing support, and display connectivity. Neither part is a substitute for the other. The data does not support any claim that the NVIDIA part competes with the AMD part in raw performance.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural families. The MI300A uses CDNA 3.0, AMD's data center compute architecture, built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The N1 16SM uses Blackwell 2.0, NVIDIA's architecture, built on the GB20B chip. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, so the process node is identical. The difference is in how the silicon is used.

The MI300A packs 153,000 million transistors onto a 1017 mm² die, with a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The N1 16SM uses a 382 mm² die, roughly 37.6 percent of the AMD die area, with an unknown transistor count. The AMD part is a massive compute device. The NVIDIA part is an integrated graphics processor, indicated by its IGP slot width and its generation label "Blackwell IGP (N1x)".

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The MI300A uses HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The N1 16SM uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD bus width is 32 times wider. Memory capacity is 192 GB versus 128 GB. The AMD part has no display outputs. The NVIDIA part has one HDMI output. The AMD part has no power connectors listed and is an OAM module. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with no power connectors listed and no suggested PSU figure.

Feature sets diverge as well. The N1 16SM records 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, plus 24 ROPs. The MI300A records zero ROPs and no RT or tensor core counts. The MI300A has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support listed, while the N1 16SM lists all three as N/A. The MI300A has a release date of December 5, 2023. The N1 16SM has a release date of May 31, 2026, and an active production status. The MI300A has a predecessor listed as FirePro Data Center, while the N1 16SM has no predecessor.

FAQ

Q: Which part has more FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS. The AMD part is roughly 8.5 times higher.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The MI300A has 192 GB of HBM3 with a 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X with a 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either part have ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists 16 ray tracing cores. The AMD MI300A has no ray tracing core count recorded in the database.

Q: Are these parts on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The MI300A die is 1017 mm², while the N1 16SM die is 382 mm².

Q: Which part supports display output?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 1x HDMI output. The AMD MI300A lists no display outputs.

Q: What is the boost clock for each?

A: The MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz. The N1 16SM boosts to 2346 MHz, which is higher.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A wins in raw compute throughput. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 653.7 TFLOPS FP16 figures place it far ahead of the N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS in both precisions. Texture rate is also an AMD win: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is the largest single advantage, 10.3 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, which is critical for data center workloads that move large datasets. The 192 GB HBM3 capacity also exceeds the 128 GB LPDDR5X of the NVIDIA part. The MI300A has a wider bus, 8192 bit versus 256 bit, and a higher effective memory speed, 10.1 Gbps versus 8.5 Gbps. The AMD part also has more shading units, 19,456 versus 2,048, and more texture mapping units, 1,216 versus 128.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in areas related to integrated graphics functionality. It has a higher boost clock, 2346 MHz versus 2100 MHz. It has 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s, while the MI300A has 0 ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. It records 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, which the MI300A does not list. It has display output capability with 1x HDMI, while the AMD part has no outputs. The N1 16SM is marked as active in production, while the MI300A has no production status listed. The NVIDIA part also has a smaller die, 382 mm² versus 1017 mm², which may be relevant for systems with physical space constraints, though the database does not provide dimensions for either part.

The use case split is clean. The MI300A is for compute-heavy acceleration, large memory pools, and extreme bandwidth. The N1 16SM is for integrated graphics, display output, and light compute with some RT and tensor capability. The data shows no overlap in their intended roles.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification.

Process node and foundry are the same: 5 nm and TSMC. Die size differs: 1017 mm² for the MI300A, 382 mm² for the N1 16SM. Transistor count is 153,000 million for the AMD part, unknown for the NVIDIA part. Transistor density is 150.4 million per square millimeter for the AMD part, not listed for the NVIDIA part.

Base clocks differ: 1000 MHz for the MI300A, 741 MHz for the N1 16SM. Boost clocks differ: 2100 MHz for the AMD part, 2346 MHz for the NVIDIA part. Memory clocks differ: 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective for the AMD part, 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective for the NVIDIA part.

Memory configuration differs completely: 192 GB HBM3 with 8192 bit bus and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth versus 128 GB LPDDR5X with 256 bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Execution resources differ: 19,456 shading units versus 2,048; 1,216 TMUs versus 128; 0 ROPs versus 24; no RT cores listed versus 16; no tensor cores listed versus 64.

Throughput rates differ: pixel rate 0 MPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s; texture rate 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s; FP32 81.72 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS; FP16 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) versus 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specifications differ: the MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, with an OAM Module slot width. The N1 16SM has an unknown TDP, no suggested PSU, and an IGP slot width. Both have no power connectors. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16.

Display outputs differ: the MI300A has none, the N1 16SM has 1x HDMI. API support differs: the MI300A lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the N1 16SM lists all three as N/A.

Release dates differ: the MI300A released on December 5, 2023; the N1 16SM releases on May 31, 2026. Production status differs: the MI300A has none listed, the N1 16SM is active. The MI300A has a predecessor, FirePro Data Center, while the N1 16SM has none. Neither part has a successor listed, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.