DEPLOYDatabase

Chip comparison

AMD Instinct MI250X vs Tenstorrent Wormhole

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 Wormhole
Process nodeTSMC N6GlobalFoundries 12nm
TDP560 W160 W
Memory128 GB HBM2e12 GB GDDR6
Memory bandwidth3,200 GB/s288 GB/s
FP16 (dense)383 TFLOPS148 TFLOPS
BF16 (dense)383 TFLOPS—
INT8 (dense)383 TOPS590 TOPS
Form factorOAMPCIe (n300, n150)
Announced2021-11-082024-07-01
Released2022-06-012024-08-01

Robots running AMD Instinct MI250X

No robots publicly running it yet.

Robots running Tenstorrent Wormhole

No robots publicly running it yet.

Data centers with AMD Instinct MI250X

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Data centers with Tenstorrent Wormhole

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Common questions

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

AMD Instinct MI250X has 2.59x the dense FP16/BF16 throughput of the other (AMD Instinct MI250X: 383 TFLOPS; Tenstorrent Wormhole: 148 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 Wormhole: which has more memory?

AMD Instinct MI250X carries more HBM (AMD Instinct MI250X: 128 GB HBM2e; Tenstorrent Wormhole: 12 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 Wormhole: which is more power-efficient?

Dense FP16/BF16 TFLOPS per watt: AMD Instinct MI250X 0.68 (383 ÷ 560 W); Tenstorrent Wormhole 0.93 (148 ÷ 160 W). Tenstorrent Wormhole 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 Wormhole full page.