BXT-32-1024 MC4 vs MI300X OAM
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | BXT-32-1024 MC4 | MI300X OAM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| VRAM | 0 MB Shared | 192 GB HBM3 | — |
| Memory bandwidth (GB/s) | 102 | 5,300 | -98.1% |
| TDP (W) | 5 | 750 | — |
| Stable Diffusion (it/s) | 1.5 | 110.0 | -98.6% |
| LLM inference (tokens/s) | 25 | 420 | -94.0% |
- These GPUs come from different eras (2020 vs 2023), so direct benchmark comparisons are not meaningful. The table shows their specifications side by side for historical and architectural context.
Verdict: BXT-32-1024 MC4 or MI300X OAM?
BXT-32-1024 MC4 advantages
- Power efficiency (+99%)
MI300X OAM advantages
- Video memory (+100%)
- Memory bandwidth (+98%)
- AI image generation (+99%)
- Local LLM inference (+94%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the BXT-32-1024 MC4 if you want lower power draw, heat and noise.
- Choose the MI300X OAM if you play the latest titles at high textures or do GPU-accelerated work.
BXT-32-1024 MC4 vs MI300X OAM: which should you choose?
BXT-32-1024 MC4 — Imagination integrated graphics processor (2020, Rogue Architecture) with 0 MB of Shared, averaging 38 fps at 1440p.
MI300X OAM — AMD server graphics card (2023, CDNA 3.0) with 192 GB of HBM3; launched at $20,000.
BXT-32-1024 MC4 vs MI300X OAM: a cross-generation spec comparison. These GPUs come from different eras (2020 vs 2023), so direct benchmark comparisons are not meaningful. The table shows their specifications side by side for historical and architectural context.
Different eras, different missions
These two parts do not compete head-to-head: BXT-32-1024 MC4 (2020, Integrated) and MI300X OAM (2023, Server) come from different generations or market segments, so modern game benchmarks do not apply to both. The specification table above is best read as architectural context — process node, memory technology and power budgets show how far GPU design has moved.
Specifications at a glance
BXT-32-1024 MC4 carries 0 MB of Shared against 192 GB of HBM3 on MI300X OAM, with board powers of 5 W and 750 W respectively.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the graphics card comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the BXT-32-1024 MC4 better than the MI300X OAM?
MI300X OAM is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. These GPUs come from different eras (2020 vs 2023), so direct benchmark comparisons are not meaningful. The table shows their specifications side by side for historical and architectural context.
What is the main difference between the BXT-32-1024 MC4 and the MI300X OAM?
These GPUs come from different eras (2020 vs 2023), so direct benchmark comparisons are not meaningful. The table shows their specifications side by side for historical and architectural context.
Which should I choose?
Choose the BXT-32-1024 MC4 if you want lower power draw, heat and noise. Choose the MI300X OAM if you play the latest titles at high textures or do GPU-accelerated work.
Methodology
Graphics cards are compared on 3DMark Time Spy scores, average gaming frame rates at 1080p/1440p/4K, FP32 compute throughput, VRAM capacity and type, memory bandwidth, board power (TDP) and launch MSRP — plus AI workload throughput (Stable Diffusion iterations/s and local LLM tokens/s) where measured. Vintage and server GPUs without modern benchmark results are compared on specifications only, clearly labelled. Frame rates are averages across a game suite at high settings; specific titles vary.