AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two products compared here?

A: The comparison is between the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X, a data center accelerator built on CDNA 3.0, and the NVIDIA N1 16SM, an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on Blackwell 2.0.

Q: How do their memory subsystems differ?

A: The AMD MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, providing 273.2 GB/s. This is a 37.7x difference in raw memory bandwidth in favor of AMD.

Q: Which processor has more shading units?

A: The AMD MI308X has 19,456 shading units. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2,048 shading units. The AMD part also carries 1,216 texture mapping units versus 128 on the NVIDIA chip.

Q: Do both support the same PCIe interface?

A: Yes, both use PCIe 5.0 x16. However, the AMD part is an OAM module with no display outputs, while the NVIDIA part is an IGP with a single HDMI output.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X launched on December 5, 2023. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is scheduled for May 31, 2026, and is listed as active in production.

Q: How do their boost clocks compare?

A: The AMD MI308X has a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz, which is 246 MHz higher. The base clocks are 1000 MHz and 741 MHz, respectively.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to fundamentally different architecture families and serve distinct market segments. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X uses CDNA 3.0, a compute-optimized architecture designed for data center workloads. Its chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC and contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses Blackwell 2.0, an architecture tailored for integrated graphics in a system-on-chip context. Its chip, GB20B, is also fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the die size is 382 mm², roughly 37.5% the area of the AMD part. Transistor count is listed as unknown for the NVIDIA chip, and no density figure is recorded.

The AMD MI308X has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed, whereas the NVIDIA N1 16SM includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The AMD part also reports zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, consistent with a pure compute accelerator. The NVIDIA chip has 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s, reflecting its ability to drive a display output.

The memory architectures diverge sharply. AMD uses HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD memory clock is listed as 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective, while the NVIDIA memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

The AMD part has no display outputs and is designed as an OAM module. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with one HDMI output. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16, but the NVIDIA IGP likely integrates the CPU and GPU in a single package, whereas the AMD accelerator is a discrete module.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two products by intended use case. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X dominates in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is 8.5x higher than the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth is 37.7x higher. The AMD part also offers 192 GB of memory versus 128 GB, a 50% capacity advantage.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM counters with a higher boost clock, integrated display output, and ray tracing plus tensor core support. Its pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s is notable, while the AMD part reports zero pixels per second. The NVIDIA chip also consumes far less power, though the exact TDP is unknown; the AMD part is rated at 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W.

For data center training and inference, the AMD MI308X is the obvious choice based on the recorded specifications. For an integrated processor handling graphics output and lighter compute, the NVIDIA N1 16SM is the functional option. The AMD part has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a screen. The NVIDIA part has no direct compute benchmarks recorded, but its architecture includes features that the AMD part lacks entirely.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Chip: AMD uses Aqua Vanjaram; NVIDIA uses GB20B.
• Architecture: AMD uses CDNA 3.0; NVIDIA uses Blackwell 2.0.
• Generation: AMD is Radeon Instinct (MIx); NVIDIA is Blackwell IGP (N1x).
• Transistors: AMD has 153,000 million; NVIDIA is unknown.
• Die Size: AMD is 1017 mm²; NVIDIA is 382 mm².
• Transistor Density: AMD is 150.4M / mm²; NVIDIA is not recorded.
• Base Clock: AMD is 1000 MHz; NVIDIA is 741 MHz.
• Boost Clock: AMD is 2100 MHz; NVIDIA is 2346 MHz.
• Memory Clock: AMD is 2525 MHz (10.1 Gbps effective); NVIDIA is 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: AMD is 192 GB; NVIDIA is 128 GB.
• Memory Type: AMD is HBM3; NVIDIA is LPDDR5X.
• Memory Bus Width: AMD is 8192 bit; NVIDIA is 256 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: AMD is 10.3 TB/s; NVIDIA is 273.2 GB/s.
• Shading Units: AMD is 19,456; NVIDIA is 2,048.
• TMUs: AMD is 1,216; NVIDIA is 128.
• ROPs: AMD is 0; NVIDIA is 24.
• Ray Tracing Cores: AMD has none; NVIDIA has 16.
• Tensor Cores: AMD has none; NVIDIA has 64.
• Pixel Rate: AMD is 0 MPixel/s; NVIDIA is 56.30 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: AMD is 2,553.6 GTexel/s; NVIDIA is 300.3 GTexel/s.
• FP32: AMD is 81.72 TFLOPS; NVIDIA is 9.609 TFLOPS.
• FP16: AMD is 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1); NVIDIA is 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: AMD is 750 W; NVIDIA is unknown.
• Slot Width: AMD is OAM Module; NVIDIA is IGP.
• Suggested PSU: AMD is 1150 W; NVIDIA has none.
• Display Outputs: AMD has none; NVIDIA has 1x HDMI.
• APIs: AMD has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support; NVIDIA lists N/A for all three.
• Production Status: AMD has none recorded; NVIDIA is Active.
• Release Date: AMD is 2023-12-05; NVIDIA is 2026-05-31.
• Predecessor: AMD is FirePro Data Center; NVIDIA has none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark results are recorded in the database for these two products. Both have an average benchmark score of 0 and zero wins in the head-to-head section. The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both, indicating a neutral placement in the absence of measured performance data.

The specification-level comparison provides the only measurable differences. The AMD MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 8.5x the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS. In FP16, the AMD part reaches 653.7 TFLOPS using an 8:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part achieves 9.609 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The AMD texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is 8.5x higher than the NVIDIA's 300.3 GTexel/s.

Memory bandwidth is the most lopsided metric. The AMD part's 10.3 TB/s is 37.7x higher than the NVIDIA's 273.2 GB/s. The AMD memory bus width of 8192 bits is 32x wider than the NVIDIA's 256-bit bus. The AMD memory capacity of 192 GB exceeds the NVIDIA's 128 GB by 50%.

The NVIDIA part wins on pixel rate, 56.30 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s for AMD. The NVIDIA boost clock of 2346 MHz is 11.7% higher than the AMD's 2100 MHz. The NVIDIA part also has ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which the AMD part does not feature at all.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X wins decisively in compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity. Its FP32 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS positions it for heavy data center workloads such as large-scale matrix operations and scientific simulation. The FP16 output of 653.7 TFLOPS further extends its lead in mixed-precision training environments. The 192 GB HBM3 pool and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth allow it to handle massive datasets without frequent host transfers.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in display capability, ray tracing, and tensor processing. The single HDMI output makes it functional as an integrated graphics solution. The 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for graphics rendering and AI inference tasks that the AMD part cannot perform. The higher boost clock of 2346 MHz suggests better per-clock efficiency, and the lower power envelope, though unspecified, is consistent with an IGP rather than a 750 W accelerator.

In terms of physical footprint, the AMD part is an OAM module requiring a 1150 W power supply, while the NVIDIA part is an IGP with no external power connector. The AMD part has no display outputs, so it cannot serve any graphics output role. The NVIDIA part has no compute benchmarks recorded, so its absolute performance level remains unmeasured.

The production status favors NVIDIA, listed as Active, while AMD's status is not recorded. The release dates also differ, with AMD launching in December 2023 and NVIDIA scheduled for May 2026. The AMD part inherits from the FirePro Data Center line, while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor.

For users with data center compute needs, the AMD MI308X provides the recorded performance headroom. For systems requiring integrated graphics with ray tracing and tensor cores, the NVIDIA N1 16SM is the only option with those features listed. The two products do not compete in the same segment, and the data reflects that separation clearly.