AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation Comparison

# NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI60

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation records an average benchmark score of 184,664, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 averages 92,466. That places the NVIDIA card nearly 100% higher in aggregate performance.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada scores 175,286 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 92,488 for the MI60. The NVIDIA card leads by 89.5% in that test.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 5000 Ada scores 194,041 while the MI60 scores 92,444. The advantage for NVIDIA here is 109.9%, the largest margin in any recorded benchmark.

Q: How does each card rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada sits at the 98th percentile of all GPUs, while the MI60 sits at the 93rd percentile. The RTX 5000 Ada is also close to the top of the entire database.

Q: Which card is closer to its nearest rival in performance?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada's closest rival is the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB, which trails by just 0.5%. The MI60's closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A4500, which trails by 0.9%, while the AMD Radeon Pro VII leads the MI60 by 4.8%.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada Generation is listed as Active, while the Radeon Instinct MI60 is End-of-life. The MI60 launched in 2018, while the RTX 5000 Ada launched in 2023.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design generations. The RTX 5000 Ada uses NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die. The MI60 uses AMD's GCN 5.1 architecture on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC, with 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die. That gives the Ada chip a transistor density of 125.3M per mm² versus 40.0M per mm² for the Vega 20 chip. The Ada chip packs over five times the transistors into less than twice the die area.

The shading resources differ dramatically. The RTX 5000 Ada carries 12,800 shading units, 400 texture mapping units, and 176 render output units. The MI60 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Ada GPU also includes dedicated ray tracing cores (100) and tensor cores (400), while the MI60 has neither.

Memory subsystems reflect different design philosophies. Both cards have 32 GB of memory, but the RTX 5000 Ada uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI60 uses HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth, nearly double the bandwidth despite the older memory type. Clock speeds show the Ada card running at 1155 MHz base and 2550 MHz boost, while the MI60 runs at 1200 MHz base and 1800 MHz boost. The effective memory speed is 18 Gbps for the Ada card versus 2 Gbps for the MI60.

Compute throughput is starkly different. The RTX 5000 Ada delivers 65.28 TFLOPS of FP32 and 65.28 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The MI60 delivers 14.75 TFLOPS of FP32 and 29.49 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The Ada card produces a pixel rate of 448.8 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,020.0 GTexel/s, versus 115.2 GPixel/s and 460.8 GTexel/s for the MI60.

Power and connectivity also differ. The RTX 5000 Ada has a 250 W TDP with a single 16-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The MI60 has a 300 W TDP with a 6-pin plus 8-pin connector setup and a suggested PSU of 700 W. Both are dual-slot cards with PCIe 4.0 x16 interfaces. The RTX 5000 Ada offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MI60 offers a single mini-DisplayPort 1.4a output. API support also differs: the Ada card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI60 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most use cases. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation leads in every recorded benchmark, with an average score roughly double that of the MI60. The NVIDIA card wins both head-to-head tests, with margins of 89.5% in OpenCL and 109.9% in Vulkan. Its percentile ranking of 98 versus 93 for the MI60 reinforces that gap.

The RTX 5000 Ada is the appropriate choice for users who need maximum compute throughput, modern API support, and active production status. Its 65.28 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, combined with ray tracing and tensor core hardware, makes it suitable for workloads that leverage those features. The four DisplayPort outputs also support multi-display configurations.

The MI60 remains relevant only in specific scenarios. Its 1.02 TB/s memory bandwidth, delivered through HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, is substantially higher than the Ada card's 576.0 GB/s. For memory-bandwidth-bound workloads that do not require modern API features or ray tracing, the MI60 could still hold value. Its End-of-life status, however, means no active support or future updates.

Users should choose the RTX 5000 Ada for general compute, rendering, and any workload benefiting from tensor or ray tracing hardware. The MI60 is only defensible for legacy deployments or specialized bandwidth-sensitive tasks where the higher memory bandwidth matters more than compute throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation | AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | GCN 5.1 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 76,300 million | 13,230 million |

| Die Size | 609 mm² | 331 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 125.3M / mm² | 40.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1155 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2550 MHz | 1800 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 1.02 TB/s |

| Effective Memory Speed | 18 Gbps | 2 Gbps |

| Shading Units | 12,800 | 4,096 |

| TMUs | 400 | 256 |

| ROPs | 176 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 100 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 400 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 448.8 GPixel/s | 115.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,020.0 GTexel/s | 460.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 65.28 TFLOPS | 14.75 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 65.28 TFLOPS (1:1) | 29.49 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 300 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 700 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-08-08 | 2018-11-17 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive NVIDIA victory in both benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 5000 Ada scores 175,286 against the MI60's 92,488, a delta of 89.5%. That means the Ada card delivers nearly double the OpenCL performance of the MI60, a gap that reflects the massive differences in shading units, clock speeds, and compute throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin grows even larger. The RTX 5000 Ada scores 194,041 versus 92,444 for the MI60, a delta of 109.9%. This is the single biggest win for either card in the head-to-head comparison. The Vulkan result also shows the Ada card performing better relative to itself than in OpenCL, suggesting its newer architecture and driver support extract more from the Vulkan API.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story. The RTX 5000 Ada averages 184,664, while the MI60 averages 92,466. The nearest rivals for each card reinforce the positioning. The RTX 5000 Ada sits within 1.4% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell and within 0.5% of the A100 SXM4 80 GB. The MI60 sits within 0.9% of the RTX A4500 but trails the AMD Radeon Pro VII by 4.8% and the Radeon RX 7900M by 5.2%.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5000 Ada Generation wins in every recorded benchmark category, so its advantages are broad rather than narrow. It leads in OpenCL by 89.5% and in Vulkan by 109.9%, with an average score that is roughly double the MI60's. Its FP32 throughput of 65.28 TFLOPS versus 14.75 TFLOPS makes it the clear choice for general compute, and its FP16 performance at 65.28 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio exceeds even the MI60's 2:1 FP16 rate of 29.49 TFLOPS.

The Ada card also wins on architectural features. It has ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which the MI60 lacks entirely. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI60 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The Ada card's four DisplayPort outputs also make it more flexible for multi-monitor setups, though this matters less in a compute-focused context.

The MI60's sole advantage in the recorded data is memory bandwidth. Its 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth, achieved through HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, is nearly double the Ada card's 576.0 GB/s. For workloads that are strictly memory-bandwidth-bound and do not benefit from the Ada card's compute or feature advantages, the MI60 could still be competitive. Its lower shading unit count and older architecture, however, limit its overall throughput.

The MI60 also has a lower base clock (1200 MHz versus 1155 MHz), but its boost clock of 1800 MHz is significantly lower than the Ada card's 2550 MHz. The MI60's higher TDP of 300 W versus 250 W means it consumes more power while delivering less performance, a combination that is difficult to justify outside of legacy deployments.

In practical terms, the RTX 5000 Ada is the superior choice for nearly all workloads measured in the database. The MI60's End-of-life status and lack of ray tracing or tensor hardware make it a niche product at best. The only scenario where the MI60's data justifies consideration is one where memory bandwidth is the sole bottleneck and the workload cannot use the Ada card's compute or feature advantages.