AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc A570M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI300 and the Intel Arc A570M. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and neither part shows a win count in direct comparison. This is an unusual situation for a hardware comparison page, as the database typically records matched test runs.

What the database does provide is a single benchmark result for the Intel Arc A570M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A570M scores 58,239 points. That score places the GPU in the 88th percentile of all graphics cards in the database. For context, the nearest rivals to the Arc A570M in that benchmark are the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 points (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085 points (0.3% lower), the NVIDIA P102-100 at 58,528 points (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 points (0.7% higher). The Arc A570M essentially trades blows with these cards, sitting within a narrow band of roughly 1% either way.

The AMD Instinct MI300 has no benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and its percentile versus all GPUs is listed at 50. With no recorded scores, the database cannot confirm any measured performance for the MI300 in any workload. The Arc A570M, by contrast, has a verified score and a percentile ranking that shows it outperforms the vast majority of GPUs in the database.

Because the MI300 lacks any benchmark data, the head-to-head comparison is one-sided. The Arc A570M has a concrete OpenCL score; the MI300 has none. The MI300's percentile figure of 50 is a default or placeholder value, not a result derived from measured performance. This means the only numerical comparison available is the Arc A570M's score against its own rivals, not against the MI300.

The biggest wins in this matchup, therefore, are not about which card scores higher. The Arc A570M wins on data availability and measurable performance. The MI300 wins on paper specifications, which the database lists in full, but those specifications have not been validated by any recorded benchmark run. For a buyer or analyst looking at the data, the Arc A570M is the only one of the two with evidence of real-world compute performance in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A570M wins in the measurable performance category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 58,239 is the only recorded benchmark result between the two parts. That score places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs in the database, which means it outperforms 88% of tracked graphics cards. The nearest rivals, the Radeon RX 6950 XT, RX 5600 OEM, NVIDIA P102-100, and Radeon PRO V710, all sit within 0.7% of the Arc A570M's score, so the card performs at a level comparable to those desktop and professional parts.

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins on raw specification dominance. Its compute resources are far larger: 14,080 shading units versus 2,048, 880 texture mapping units versus 128, and an FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS versus 5.325 TFLOPS. The MI300 also has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, compared to the Arc A570M's 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s. These differences are enormous on paper, but they are not backed by any benchmark score in the database.

For workloads that rely on memory bandwidth and massive parallel compute, the MI300's specifications indicate it should dominate. The texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s is a 9x gap. The FP32 rate is also roughly a 9x gap. For workloads that rely on actual measured performance, the Arc A570M is the only part with data. The database records no wins for either card in a direct head-to-head, so the use-case split must be inferred from the available information: the Arc A570M has verified compute results, while the MI300 has unverified but vastly larger specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families. The AMD Instinct MI300 uses CDNA 3.0, the compute-focused architecture from AMD, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The chip is called Aqua Vanjaram and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The Intel Arc A570M uses Xe-HPG, the gaming-oriented architecture from Intel, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Its chip is DG2-256 and it belongs to the Alchemist generation, specifically the Arc 5 Mobile segment.

Transistor counts differ dramatically. The MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors on a die size of 1017 mm², giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Arc A570M has 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, with a density of 42.8 million per square millimeter. The MI300 is a massive compute accelerator, while the Arc A570M is a compact mobile GPU.

Memory architecture is another major split. The MI300 uses HBM3 with 128 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A570M uses GDDR6 with 8 GB capacity, a 128-bit bus, and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock rates also differ: the MI300 runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the Arc A570M runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective. The MI300's memory bandwidth is roughly 24 times higher, though the Arc A570M has faster per-pin signaling.

Compute unit organization differs as well. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. It is not designed for rasterization output. The Arc A570M has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 83.20 GPixel/s. The Arc A570M also includes 16 ray tracing cores, while the MI300 lists no ray tracing cores. The MI300's FP16 throughput is identical to its FP32 at 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Arc A570M's FP16 is double its FP32 at 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and interface differences are substantial. The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors with a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Arc A570M has a TDP of 75 W and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no discrete power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc A570M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300 has no display outputs, while the Arc A570M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The MI300 supports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan APIs, while the Arc A570M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score in the database?

A: Only the Intel Arc A570M has a recorded benchmark score. It scores 58,239 in Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no benchmark entries, so its average score is recorded as zero.

Q: How does the Arc A570M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A570M's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 points (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085 points (0.3% lower), the NVIDIA P102-100 at 58,528 points (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 points (0.7% higher).

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc A570M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing support?

A: The Intel Arc A570M has 16 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI300 lists no ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Intel Arc A570M has a TDP of 75 W, lists no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Arc A570M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but incomplete picture. The Intel Arc A570M is the only part with verified performance in the database. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 58,239 places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, and it sits within 0.7% of four desktop and professional rivals. For anyone looking at measured compute performance, the Arc A570M is the only choice with evidence.

The AMD Instinct MI300 has no benchmark results at all. Its percentile of 50 is a placeholder, not a measured ranking. However, its specifications are in a completely different class: 14,080 shading units versus 2,048, 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.325 TFLOPS, 128 GB HBM3 versus 8 GB GDDR6, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s. The MI300 also has a 600 W TDP and no display outputs, indicating it is designed for compute workloads rather than graphics rendering.

The verdict depends on what the data can support. If the requirement is a GPU with recorded benchmark performance, the Arc A570M is the pick. If the requirement is a GPU with massive compute specifications, the MI300 is the pick on paper, but the database cannot confirm how those specifications translate into real-world scores. The Arc A570M also supports modern graphics APIs and ray tracing, while the MI300 does not. The MI300 has no API support listed and no ROPs, so it is not suitable for traditional graphics workloads. The Arc A570M is the more versatile part based on the recorded data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300 | Intel Arc A570M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 11,500 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 269 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 42.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 14080 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 880 | 128 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None listed | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 83.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 166.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 47.87 TFLOPS | 5.325 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) | 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None listed |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | None listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2023-07-31 |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |