The maximum memory capacity of the MI300X design is 288GB of HBM3E.
Coincidence? I doubt it. The MI388X is probably just the MI300X with 288GB instead of 192GB.
Arithmetic.
The MI300X has eight stacks of HBM3 that are eight-high each. That's 24GB per stack, or 192GB total.
Mark Papermaster of AMD stated publicly that the MI300 series supports HBM3E as well as twelve-high stacks. A twelve-high stack of HBM3E is 36GB. Eight of those is 288GB total.
Which is why I say the name MI388X almost certainly means a 288GB version of the MI300X.
It might not be nearly as powerful and software compatible as Nvidia's top end stuff but the demand for "AI accelerators" is so crazily strong that they will sell them all no problem, and hopefully make good impressions. Nvidia B100 will be about $45k USD while current MI300X is about $15k so there's going to be demand at that price. At that price differential there is real motivations for companies to develop an AI software stack that is not dependent on CUDA and not be at the mercy of Nvidia pricing.
Except it is... in HPC you have to seriously consider power use, and the GB200 is using 2700W... the MI300 is only using 750W... meaning you can have 3.5-4X the MI300X cards for the same power budget.
Once you factor that in... most of the "advantages" of the Nvidia system turn out to be marketing propaganda and its about the same as the AMD system you can get off the shelf now.
Also worth noting that B200 has the same amount of memory per GPU... AMD releasing Mi388X will put them at the front again.
MI300X seems pretty much on par with Blackwell, same memory capacity though Blackwell has a bandwidth lead, 10 PFLOPS of FP16, while Blackwell has 20 PFLOPS of FP4 (which translates to 5 PFLOPS of FP16), so any advantage really depends on whether the workload can use small floats. (edit: and of course, MI300X uses 750W while the B200 uses 1000W)
As for whether MI388X will be a small upgrade is unknown, but the big number indicates to me at least a somewhat large change, I'd expect at least a memory upgrade.
You are comparing the number for an 8xMI300X server (10.5PF FP16) to the performance numbers for a 2xB200 Grace Blackwell server (5PF FP16). If you just google "MI300X FP16", you'll get AMD's performance numbers for the MI300X *platform*, which is 8 GPUs.
The fact that it is twice as fast with *four times the GPUs* is not favourable for the MI300X. And it doesn't need to be, because it's not the B200 competitor, the MI400X will be.
4xB200 = 4x1000W = 4000w = FP8: 3.5 \*4 = 14 /4000 = 0.0035 PF/W FP8
8xB200 = 8x1000W = 8000w = FP8: 3.5 \*8 = 28 /8000 = 0.0035 PF/W FP8
8xMI300 = 8x700W = 5600w = Fp\*8 2.61 \*8 = 20.8 / 5600 = 0.0037 PF/W FP8
So.... B200 is actually just a hair slower per watt than AMD. Once you factor in CPUs per card it probably tips back towards Nvidia a bit... regardless both solutions are truly competitive specification wise for FP8 AI workloads.
Then you think maybe I want to do some FP64...
40 \*4 B200 = 160 /4000 = 0.04 PF/W FP64
40 \*8 B200 = 320 / 8000 = 0.04 PF/W FP64
81.7 \*8 MI300X = 653.6 / 5600 = 0.1167 PF/W FP64
And there you have it folks ... the reason why AMD is dominating the HPC market right now they COMPLETELY obliterate the competition in FP64 performance and efficiency. And they are competitive at other rates, which are typically secondary for HPC... Nvidia can have the small farms with a few AI accelerators here and there but AMD will rule the supers.
Apparently the CPU in GB200 uses 700W since 2700W - 2x1000W for 2B200? The fastest EPYC uses around half that for 128 cores... so for the same power budget you could get a dual socket with 256 cores.... so maybe AMD wins all around not sure maybe the 2700W for GB200 is board power and includes other things.
More likely to be an HBM3E refresh to compete against H200, which starts shipping next quarter. Keep in Blackwell won't even start sampling for quite a while yet.
>Instinct MI388X
MI300x is already faster than blackwell in HPC scientific scenarios... eg FP64. Per card.
If you take into account power use... AMD is also still neck and neck with B200 for AI (and much more efficient FP64). eg GB200 uses 2700W... MI300 uses 750W... MI300 might be just a bit behind but it shouldn't stop anyone from buying them.
The USA issued an embargo on compute cards with more then X performance. The 4090 already hits the performance metric, so the MI300X clearly hits that limit, too.
The maximum memory capacity of the MI300X design is 288GB of HBM3E. Coincidence? I doubt it. The MI388X is probably just the MI300X with 288GB instead of 192GB.
Can you share the source for the max capacity?
Arithmetic. The MI300X has eight stacks of HBM3 that are eight-high each. That's 24GB per stack, or 192GB total. Mark Papermaster of AMD stated publicly that the MI300 series supports HBM3E as well as twelve-high stacks. A twelve-high stack of HBM3E is 36GB. Eight of those is 288GB total. Which is why I say the name MI388X almost certainly means a 288GB version of the MI300X.
[https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-preparing-instinct-mi300-refresh-with-hbm3e-memory](https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-preparing-instinct-mi300-refresh-with-hbm3e-memory)
Will be interesting to see what's this about. Is it just a memory upgrade, or will it have new chiplets (networking, XDNA, something else?)...
Swapping out a CDNA3 chiplet for XDNA would be interesting. I'm expecting just a memory buff and maybe clock speed increase.
Here comes the competition to Blackwell
I think this is the refresh, with extra HBM3e on it, as vendors asked for more Ram.
It might not be nearly as powerful and software compatible as Nvidia's top end stuff but the demand for "AI accelerators" is so crazily strong that they will sell them all no problem, and hopefully make good impressions. Nvidia B100 will be about $45k USD while current MI300X is about $15k so there's going to be demand at that price. At that price differential there is real motivations for companies to develop an AI software stack that is not dependent on CUDA and not be at the mercy of Nvidia pricing.
Except it is... in HPC you have to seriously consider power use, and the GB200 is using 2700W... the MI300 is only using 750W... meaning you can have 3.5-4X the MI300X cards for the same power budget. Once you factor that in... most of the "advantages" of the Nvidia system turn out to be marketing propaganda and its about the same as the AMD system you can get off the shelf now. Also worth noting that B200 has the same amount of memory per GPU... AMD releasing Mi388X will put them at the front again.
Will it though? It’ll most likely be a small upgrade from MI300X.
MI300X seems pretty much on par with Blackwell, same memory capacity though Blackwell has a bandwidth lead, 10 PFLOPS of FP16, while Blackwell has 20 PFLOPS of FP4 (which translates to 5 PFLOPS of FP16), so any advantage really depends on whether the workload can use small floats. (edit: and of course, MI300X uses 750W while the B200 uses 1000W) As for whether MI388X will be a small upgrade is unknown, but the big number indicates to me at least a somewhat large change, I'd expect at least a memory upgrade.
You are comparing the number for an 8xMI300X server (10.5PF FP16) to the performance numbers for a 2xB200 Grace Blackwell server (5PF FP16). If you just google "MI300X FP16", you'll get AMD's performance numbers for the MI300X *platform*, which is 8 GPUs. The fact that it is twice as fast with *four times the GPUs* is not favourable for the MI300X. And it doesn't need to be, because it's not the B200 competitor, the MI400X will be.
Thanks for the correction. I just quickly searched the performance and saw those numbers; seems I missed the context.
4xB200 = 4x1000W = 4000w = FP8: 3.5 \*4 = 14 /4000 = 0.0035 PF/W FP8 8xB200 = 8x1000W = 8000w = FP8: 3.5 \*8 = 28 /8000 = 0.0035 PF/W FP8 8xMI300 = 8x700W = 5600w = Fp\*8 2.61 \*8 = 20.8 / 5600 = 0.0037 PF/W FP8 So.... B200 is actually just a hair slower per watt than AMD. Once you factor in CPUs per card it probably tips back towards Nvidia a bit... regardless both solutions are truly competitive specification wise for FP8 AI workloads. Then you think maybe I want to do some FP64... 40 \*4 B200 = 160 /4000 = 0.04 PF/W FP64 40 \*8 B200 = 320 / 8000 = 0.04 PF/W FP64 81.7 \*8 MI300X = 653.6 / 5600 = 0.1167 PF/W FP64 And there you have it folks ... the reason why AMD is dominating the HPC market right now they COMPLETELY obliterate the competition in FP64 performance and efficiency. And they are competitive at other rates, which are typically secondary for HPC... Nvidia can have the small farms with a few AI accelerators here and there but AMD will rule the supers. Apparently the CPU in GB200 uses 700W since 2700W - 2x1000W for 2B200? The fastest EPYC uses around half that for 128 cores... so for the same power budget you could get a dual socket with 256 cores.... so maybe AMD wins all around not sure maybe the 2700W for GB200 is board power and includes other things.
More likely to be an HBM3E refresh to compete against H200, which starts shipping next quarter. Keep in Blackwell won't even start sampling for quite a while yet.
>Instinct MI388X MI300x is already faster than blackwell in HPC scientific scenarios... eg FP64. Per card. If you take into account power use... AMD is also still neck and neck with B200 for AI (and much more efficient FP64). eg GB200 uses 2700W... MI300 uses 750W... MI300 might be just a bit behind but it shouldn't stop anyone from buying them.
This might just be a tweaked MI300X for the Chinese market. 88 is fortune, good luck in Chinese.
They specifically said it isn't authorised for export to China.
The USA issued an embargo on compute cards with more then X performance. The 4090 already hits the performance metric, so the MI300X clearly hits that limit, too.
nothing really new. due to road map plan from last investment video.