DEPLOYDatabase

Chip comparison

AMD Instinct MI250X vs Tenstorrent Blackhole

Side-by-side specs

Straight from each vendor's datasheet. Winner in bold: higher throughput, memory, or transistor count; lower power draw or price. Sparse (2:4) throughput roughly doubles the FP8/INT8 numbers shown.

FieldAMD Instinct MI250XTenstorrent Blackhole
Process nodeTSMC N6TSMC N6
TDP560 W300 W
Memory128 GB HBM2e32 GB GDDR6
Memory bandwidth3,200 GB/s512 GB/s
FP16 (dense)383 TFLOPS745 TFLOPS
BF16 (dense)383 TFLOPS—
INT8 (dense)383 TOPS2,980 TOPS
Form factorOAMPCIe
Announced2021-11-082024-07-01
Released2022-06-012025-01-01

Robots running AMD Instinct MI250X

No robots publicly running it yet.

Robots running Tenstorrent Blackhole

No robots publicly running it yet.

Data centers with AMD Instinct MI250X

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Data centers with Tenstorrent Blackhole

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Common questions

AMD Instinct MI250X vs Tenstorrent Blackhole: which is faster for training?

Tenstorrent Blackhole has 1.95x the dense FP16/BF16 throughput of the other (AMD Instinct MI250X: 383 TFLOPS; Tenstorrent Blackhole: 745 TFLOPS). Real-world training speed also depends on memory bandwidth, interconnect, and software stack: see the spec diff for those inputs.

AMD Instinct MI250X vs Tenstorrent Blackhole: which has more memory?

AMD Instinct MI250X carries more HBM (AMD Instinct MI250X: 128 GB HBM2e; Tenstorrent Blackhole: 32 GB GDDR6). Memory capacity sets the largest model that fits on one chip without partitioning; memory bandwidth sets inference throughput.

AMD Instinct MI250X vs Tenstorrent Blackhole: which is more power-efficient?

Dense FP16/BF16 TFLOPS per watt: AMD Instinct MI250X 0.68 (383 ÷ 560 W); Tenstorrent Blackhole 2.48 (745 ÷ 300 W). Tenstorrent Blackhole wins at the die level; system-level efficiency also depends on cooling and interconnect.

See also: every chip comparison · AMD Instinct MI250X full page · Tenstorrent Blackhole full page.