AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6. Both accelerators have an average benchmark score of 0 and hold a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs in the database. This percentile tie indicates that, based on the current dataset, neither part has been stratified against the broader field of recorded accelerators.

Without measured workload results, the comparison must rely on the theoretical peak rates and architectural specifications recorded in the database. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS. That places the MI300X approximately 17.8% ahead of the B200 in single-precision peak throughput. In FP16, the divergence is far larger: the MI300X records 653.7 TFLOPS using an 8:1 ratio, whereas the B200 records 69.34 TFLOPS using a 1:1 ratio. The MI300X therefore shows a 9.4x advantage in peak FP16 throughput, though this figure is tied to the 8:1 shader-to-tensor ratio, not a direct comparison of native FP16 execution.

The B200 counters in texture and pixel processing. The MI300X posts a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s against 1,083.4 GTexel/s for the B200, giving the AMD part a 2.36x lead in texturing. However, the B200 has a recorded pixel rate of 43.92 GPixel/s, while the MI300X shows 0 MPixel/s. The MI300X does not expose conventional ROP output, which explains the null pixel rate in the database. The B200 also has 24 ROPs, whereas the MI300X lists 0 ROPs.

Memory bandwidth favors the AMD part. The MI300X reaches 10.3 TB/s over an 8192-bit bus using HBM3, while the B200 reaches 8.19 TB/s over the same 8192-bit bus using HBM3e. That is a 25.8% bandwidth advantage for the MI300X. The B200 compensates with a higher memory generation, HBM3e, but the effective bandwidth remains lower.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The B200 has a base clock of 120 MHz and a boost clock of 1830 MHz. The B200’s extremely low base clock suggests a power-management profile that idles the chip aggressively, while the MI300X maintains a much higher floor. Boost clocks put the MI300X 14.8% higher than the B200.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X wins in raw FP32 compute, raw FP16 peak throughput, memory bandwidth, transistor density, and texture throughput. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 figure leads the B200’s 69.34 TFLOPS, which suits workloads dominated by dense single-precision linear algebra. The 653.7 TFLOPS FP16 figure, even with the 8:1 caveat, indicates a design tuned for mixed-precision training and inference where reduced-precision tensor operations dominate. The 10.3 TB/s memory bandwidth gives the MI300X a clear edge in memory-bound kernels, particularly large embedding tables, attention mechanisms, and data-parallel operations that stream weights or activations.

The MI300X also has a higher transistor density at 150.4M transistors per mm² compared to 127.8M for the B200. That density, achieved on the same TSMC 5 nm process, reflects a more tightly packed design within its 1017 mm² die. The B200 spreads 208,000 million transistors across a 1628 mm² die, which is a larger total transistor count, but the MI300X packs more transistors per area.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins in total transistor count, pixel output, tensor core count, and PCIe generation. The B200 carries 208,000 million transistors versus 153,000 million for the MI300X, a 35.9% higher transistor budget. It also records 592 tensor cores, a field left null for the MI300X in the database. The B200’s 43.92 GPixel/s pixel rate and 24 ROPs make it the only one of the two with any rasterization output, though neither part has display outputs. The B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16, while the MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, giving the NVIDIA part a newer host interface for data transfer to and from the CPU.

The B200 also has a higher TDP budget. It is rated at 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the MI300X is rated at 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The B200 consumes 33.3% more power, which aligns with its larger die and higher transistor count. The MI300X delivers its higher FP32 and FP16 peaks within a lower power envelope, indicating better peak-power efficiency on paper.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The B200 uses the Blackwell architecture on the GB100 chip. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, so process node does not explain their differences. The MI300X belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation, while the B200 belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. Their predecessors also differ: the MI300X follows the FirePro Data Center line, and the B200 follows Server Hopper. The B200’s successor is listed as Server Rubin; the MI300X has no recorded successor.

Transistor and die data reveal different design philosophies. The MI300X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, reaching 150.4M transistors per mm². The B200 integrates 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, reaching 127.8M transistors per mm². The B200 uses 60% more die area and 35.9% more transistors, but its density is 15% lower. The MI300X is the denser chip.

Memory architecture also differs. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e with the same 8192-bit bus but 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The MI300X has 12 GB more capacity and 25.8% more bandwidth. The B200 uses a newer memory type, HBM3e, which typically offers higher per-stack bandwidth, but the recorded data shows a lower aggregate bandwidth.

Compute unit organization differs as well. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The MI300X has 2.7% more shading units but 105.4% more TMUs. The B200 has explicit tensor cores (592), while the MI300X lists no tensor core count in the database. FP16 ratios also differ: the MI300X records 653.7 TFLOPS at 8:1, while the B200 records 69.34 TFLOPS at 1:1. This suggests the MI300X uses a wider ratio between shader and tensor execution, while the B200 maintains a 1:1 ratio between FP32 and FP16 peak.

Clock and power behavior separates the two parts sharply. The MI300X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The B200 runs at a 120 MHz base and 1830 MHz boost. The B200’s base clock is extremely low, indicating a design that relies on boost behavior and power management rather than sustained base frequency. The MI300X has a higher boost clock by 270 MHz. The B200 draws 1000 W TDP versus 750 W for the MI300X, and its suggested PSU is 1400 W versus 1150 W.

Host connectivity differs. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16. Neither part has display outputs. The MI300X is an OAM Module, while the B200 is an SXM Module. The B200 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan APIs, while the MI300X leaves those fields null. Both parts lack conventional graphics API support, reflecting their compute-only roles.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 peak compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X records 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 17.8% higher than the NVIDIA B200 SXM6’s 69.34 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The MI300X has 12 GB more capacity and 25.8% more bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference?

A: The MI300X records 653.7 TFLOPS at an 8:1 ratio, while the B200 records 69.34 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The MI300X shows a 9.4x higher FP16 figure, but the ratios reflect different execution modes.

Q: Which part has more transistors?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die. The MI300X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The B200 has 35.9% more transistors, but the MI300X has higher transistor density at 150.4M per mm² versus 127.8M per mm².

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The B200 has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The B200 consumes 33.3% more power.

Q: Do either of these parts support display output?

A: No. Both the MI300X and B200 list no display outputs. The B200 records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the MI300X leaves those fields null.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Blackwell |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | GB100 |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 208,000 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 1628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 127.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 120 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 1830 MHz |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 180 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | HBM3e |

| Memory Bandwidth | 10.3 TB/s | 8.19 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 18944 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 592 |

| ROPs | 0 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 592 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 43.92 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 1,083.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 69.34 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) | 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 1000 W |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 1400 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | SXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2024-10-31 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Data Center | Server Hopper |

| Successor | null | Server Rubin |

| Launch MSRP | null | 34,999 USD |

| API Support | null | N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan |