AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc A380E x2 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 and Intel Arc A380E x2 occupy completely separate performance tiers, and the recorded data shows no overlap in their intended workloads. The MI300 is a data center compute accelerator with no display outputs, designed for massive parallel throughput. The Arc A380E x2 is a compact industrial graphics card with 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, built for multi-display embedded systems.

The MI300 wins decisively in raw compute density. It delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and 47.87 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). In FP32, the MI300 is roughly 11.7 times faster. In FP16, the MI300 still leads by about 5.8 times, despite the Arc's boosted FP16 throughput via its 2:1 ratio. The MI300 also holds a massive memory advantage: 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, producing 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, versus 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus at 186.0 GB/s. That is roughly 28.6 times more memory bandwidth.

The Arc A380E x2 wins in every graphics-oriented metric. It has 32 ROPs and produces 64.00 GPixel/s, while the MI300 has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The Arc also carries 8 ray tracing cores, a DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) API rating, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The MI300 lists all graphics APIs as N/A. The Arc outputs video through its mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors; the MI300 has no outputs at all.

The Arc A380E x2 also wins on physical integration. It is a single-slot card, 265 mm long, 127 mm high, and 20 mm wide, with a 130 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector. The MI300 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, but its TDP is 600 W with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 1000 W PSU. The Arc's suggested PSU is 300 W.

In terms of clocks, the Arc A380E x2 runs at a constant 2000 MHz base and boost, while the MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The Arc's higher clock speed does not compensate for its far smaller execution resource pool.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. It integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc A380E x2 uses the DG2-128 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 6 nm process. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for a density of 45.9M per mm². The MI300 packs roughly 21.25 times more transistors onto a die about 6.5 times larger.

The MI300's compute layout uses 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs. The Arc A380E x2 uses 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs. Neither card reports tensor cores in the database. The MI300 has no ROPs; the Arc has 32. The MI300 has no ray tracing cores; the Arc has 8. The texture rate difference is stark: 1,496.0 GTexel/s for the MI300 versus 128.0 GTexel/s for the Arc, a factor of roughly 11.7.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, running at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Arc A380E x2 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The MI300's memory clock is lower, but its bus width is about 85 times wider, giving it the massive bandwidth advantage.

Interface and power delivery also separate the two. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300 requires 2x 8-pin connectors and a 1000 W suggested PSU; the Arc uses 1x 6-pin and a 300 W suggested PSU. The MI300's TDP is 600 W, nearly 4.6 times the Arc's 130 W.

The production status differs as well. The Arc A380E x2 is marked end-of-life, with its predecessor listed as Xe Graphics and its successor as Battlemage. The MI300 lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct and has no successor listed. Release dates are recorded: the MI300 launched on 2023-01-03, while the Arc A380E x2 launched on 2024-03-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the MI300 and Arc A380E x2, and neither card has an average benchmark score or nearest rival entries. Both cards sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, a placeholder value that carries no comparative weight given the absence of recorded benchmark runs. The comparison must therefore rest on the architectural and specification data.

The largest single-number gap is memory bandwidth. The MI300's 5.32 TB/s exceeds the Arc's 186.0 GB/s by a factor of roughly 28.6. In practical terms, this means the MI300 can feed its 14,080 shading units with data at a rate the Arc cannot approach. The Arc's 186.0 GB/s is adequate for its 1,024 shading units, but the per-shading-unit bandwidth is far lower: the MI300 provides about 378 GB/s per 1,000 shading units, while the Arc provides about 181.6 GB/s per 1,000 shading units.

FP32 throughput shows the MI300 at 47.87 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the Arc, an 11.7-fold lead. The FP16 comparison is closer in relative terms, but the MI300 still wins: its 47.87 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) beats the Arc's 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) by a factor of 5.8. The Arc's FP16 advantage over its own FP32 is a 2:1 ratio, which is typical for consumer-oriented architectures that accelerate half-precision workloads. The MI300's 1:1 ratio means it does not artificially boost FP16; its raw FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput.

Texture rate follows the same pattern: 1,496.0 GTexel/s for the MI300 versus 128.0 GTexel/s for the Arc. Pixel rate reverses completely, with the Arc at 64.00 GPixel/s and the MI300 at 0 MPixel/s. The MI300's 880 TMUs produce the high texture rate, but its zero ROP count means it cannot rasterize frames. The Arc's 32 ROPs and 64 TMUs give it a balanced graphics pipeline capable of outputting pixels.

Clock behavior differs notably. The Arc holds a flat 2000 MHz across base and boost, suggesting a fixed clock for deterministic industrial operation. The MI300 ranges from 1000 MHz base to 1700 MHz boost, a 70% boost headroom. The Arc's memory runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the MI300's HBM3 runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), but the MI300 compensates with the 8192-bit bus.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, which is about 11.7 times the Arc A380E x2's 4.096 TFLOPS.

Q: Can the MI300 output video to displays?

A: No. The MI300 has no display outputs and lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The Arc A380E x2 provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A380E x2 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300 has roughly 28.6 times more bandwidth.

Q: What is the pixel rate of each card?

A: The Arc A380E x2 produces 64.00 GPixel/s with its 32 ROPs. The MI300 has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming it is not a rasterization device.

Q: Which card has ray tracing support?

A: Only the Arc A380E x2, which includes 8 ray tracing cores. The MI300 lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 1000 W PSU. The Arc A380E x2 has a 130 W TDP, uses 1x 6-pin power, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

The Verdict

The data separates these two cards into mutually exclusive roles. The AMD Instinct MI300 is a compute accelerator for workloads that demand massive FP32 and FP16 throughput, enormous memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, 128 GB HBM3, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth place it in a class the Arc cannot approach. Its lack of display outputs, rasterization hardware, and graphics API support makes it unsuitable for any rendering task.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 is a graphics card for multi-display embedded systems. Its 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, 8 ray tracing cores, 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, and full graphics API support make it functional where the MI300 cannot operate at all. Its 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest, but the card does not need more for its display-oriented purpose. Its single-slot form factor, 130 W TDP, and single 6-pin connector also make it far easier to integrate into space-constrained systems.

The choice depends entirely on the workload. For compute-heavy data center tasks, the MI300 is the only option of the two. For any task requiring video output, pixel processing, or ray tracing, the Arc A380E x2 is the only option. The MI300's 5 nm process and 153,000 million transistors buy raw throughput at the cost of 600 W power and no graphics capability. The Arc's 6 nm process and 7,200 million transistors deliver graphics functionality at 130 W. Neither card can substitute for the other.