AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc B370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a fundamental mismatch in benchmark coverage between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the Intel Arc B370. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores, while the Intel Arc B370 has a single recorded score in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Consequently, direct head-to-head comparisons are impossible from the database, and the analysis relies on the available performance metrics and architectural specifications.

The Intel Arc B370's sole benchmark result, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs in the database. This percentile ranking indicates that the vast majority of recorded GPUs outperform it in this specific test. Its nearest rivals in the database are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 with an average score of 1186 (a delta of -0.2%), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 with an average score of 1190 (a delta of -0.5%), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M with an average score of 1192 (a delta of -0.7%), and the AMD FirePro M2000 with an average score of 1168 (a delta of 1.4%). These deltas are remarkably small, suggesting the Arc B370's performance clusters tightly with these older and lower-tier mobile and desktop parts in this workload. The Arc B370 is effectively 0.2% behind the Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and 1.4% ahead of the FirePro M2000, a margin that is within typical run-to-run variance.

For the AMD Instinct MI300, the absence of benchmark data means no wins can be attributed to it, and no direct comparisons can be drawn from the database. The MI300's average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile versus all GPUs is reported as 50, but without actual scores, this percentile must be treated as a placeholder rather than a derived ranking. The Intel Arc B370, by contrast, has a clear if modest measured position. The two products do not intersect in any recorded benchmark, so the head-to-head section is defined by the arc B370's solitary result and the MI300's lack of any measured data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial and reflects their divergent design goals. The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel Arc B370 uses the Panther Lake chip based on Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no density figure can be calculated from the database.

The MI300 is a discrete accelerator with a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no separate bus interface. The MI300 has no display outputs, whereas the Arc B370's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The MI300's power delivery requires 2x 8-pin connectors with a suggested PSU of 1000 W and a TDP of 600 W. The Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed, consistent with its integrated nature.

Memory architecture differs completely. The MI300 carries 128 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. The Arc B370 uses system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. Its memory clock is also system shared. The MI300's shading units number 14,080, with 880 texture mapping units and no ROPs. The Arc B370 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The Arc B370 also includes 10 ray tracing cores, while the MI300 has none listed. Neither product lists tensor cores in the database.

Clock behavior highlights their different roles. The MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz. The Arc B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz. The Arc B370's boost clock is 700 MHz higher than the MI300's, but the MI300's much larger execution resource pool changes the performance calculus. Pixel rate for the MI300 is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, while the Arc B370 achieves 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the MI300 massively: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s for the Arc B370. Floating point performance shows the MI300 at 47.87 TFLOPS for FP32 and 47.87 TFLOPS for FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The Arc B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS for FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The MI300's FP16 rate is 35.58 TFLOPS higher than the Arc B370's, and its FP32 rate is 41.73 TFLOPS higher.

API support separates the two as well. The Arc B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming its compute-focused orientation rather than a graphics rendering role. Dimensions also differ: the MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Arc B370 has no listed dimensions, consistent with an integrated part. The MI300's production status is not listed, while the Arc B370 is marked as active. Release dates place the MI300 on 2023-01-03 and the Arc B370 on 2026-01-26. The MI300's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the Arc B370 has no predecessor listed. Neither has a successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc B370 wins in integrated graphics applicability. It is an IGP with a 25 W TDP, no external power connectors, and no suggested PSU, making it suitable for portable devices with system shared memory. Its API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can run contemporary graphics workloads. Its pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and 20 ROPs give it a functional rasterization pipeline, and its 10 ray tracing cores provide ray tracing capability. Its boost clock of 2400 MHz is the highest clock speed in either product's specification. In the database's single recorded benchmark, it scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 5th percentile, but that is still a measured result.

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 of 47.87 TFLOPS is 7.8 times the Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. Its FP16 of 47.87 TFLOPS is 3.9 times the Arc B370's 12.29 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s is 15.6 times the Arc B370's 96.00 GTexel/s. It has 14,080 shading units versus 1,280, 880 TMUs versus 40, and a memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s versus a system dependent figure. The MI300's 128 GB of HBM3 memory dwarfs any system shared allocation. Its 8192-bit bus width provides a memory interface scale that the Arc B370 cannot approach. The MI300's 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die establish a hardware resource base that the Arc B370, with unknown transistor count, does not match in the database.

The MI300 also wins in power envelope expectations relative to performance class. A 600 W TDP with 2x 8-pin connectors and a 1000 W suggested PSU indicates a high-performance accelerator design. The Arc B370's 25 W TDP is 575 W lower, but that reflects a different product category rather than a performance advantage. The MI300's 5 nm TSMC process and CDNA 3.0 architecture target compute acceleration, while the Arc B370's 3 nm Intel process and Xe3-LPG architecture target integrated graphics in a Panther Lake platform.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 records 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc B370 records 6.144 TFLOPS. The MI300's FP32 figure is 41.73 TFLOPS higher.

Q: What is the Intel Arc B370's recorded benchmark score and percentile?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

Q: How much memory does the AMD Instinct MI300 have, and what type?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B370 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc B370 lists 10 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI300 lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Intel Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W and uses no power connectors.

Q: Which product has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc B370 boosts to 2400 MHz, while the AMD Instinct MI300 boosts to 1700 MHz. The Arc B370's boost clock is 700 MHz higher.

Specification Differences

The database records the following differing fields between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the Intel Arc B370:

• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram versus Panther Lake
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 versus Xe3-LPG
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake)
• Process node: 5 nm (TSMC) versus 3 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus unknown
• Die size: 1017 mm² versus unknown
• Transistor density: 150.4M / mm² versus not listed
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost clock: 1700 MHz versus 2400 MHz
• Memory clock: 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective versus system shared
• Memory size: 128 GB versus system shared
• Memory type: HBM3 versus system shared
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit versus system shared
• Memory bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus system dependent
• Shading units: 14,080 versus 1,280
• TMUs: 880 versus 40
• ROPs: 0 versus 20
• Ray tracing cores: not listed versus 10
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 47.87 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS
• FP16: 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 600 W versus 25 W
• Slot width: not listed versus IGP
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus not listed
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus IGP
• Display outputs: no outputs versus portable device dependent
• DirectX support: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL support: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan support: N/A versus 1.4
• Length: 267 mm 10.5 inches versus not listed
• Height: 111 mm 4.4 inches versus not listed
• Production status: not listed versus active
• Release date: 2023-01-03 versus 2026-01-26
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus not listed
• Average benchmark score: 0 versus 1184
• Percentile versus all GPUs: 50 versus 5
• Nearest rivals: none versus four listed

Fields that are the same or not listed for either product include series, codename, game clock, tensor cores, width, launch MSRP, and successor.

The Verdict

The data separates these two products into distinct categories with no overlap in measured performance. The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor with a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 and a 5th percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals in the database are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000, with deltas ranging from -0.7% to 1.4%. This cluster indicates that the Arc B370's performance level sits among older, lower-tier graphics parts in this specific workload. Its 25 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and IGP slot width confirm a low-power integrated design for portable devices. Its API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, plus 10 ray tracing cores, gives it functional graphics capabilities within that constrained power budget.

The AMD Instinct MI300 is a discrete compute accelerator with no recorded benchmarks and no nearest rivals in the database. Its specifications describe a high-throughput device: 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, 47.87 TFLOPS FP16, 128 GB HBM3, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 14,080 shading units. Its 600 W TDP and 2x 8-pin power connectors align with a data center or workstation accelerator role. The absence of display outputs and graphics API support reinforces that it is not intended for rendering workloads. Its 50th percentile placeholder, without supporting benchmark data, provides no meaningful performance ranking.

The verdict follows directly from the recorded data. For integrated graphics in a portable device, the Arc B370 is the only viable choice of the two, as the MI300 has no display outputs and no graphics API support. For compute throughput, the MI300's specifications exceed the Arc B370's by wide margins: 41.73 TFLOPS higher FP32, 35.58 TFLOPS higher FP16, 1,400 GTexel/s higher texture rate, and 12,800 more shading units. The Arc B370 holds advantages in pixel rate (48.00 GPixel/s versus 0), ray tracing cores (10 versus none), API support, and boost clock (2400 MHz versus 1700 MHz). No benchmark comparison exists, so the choice rests on the specification differences. The MI300 targets compute acceleration with massive memory and bandwidth. The Arc B370 targets low-power integrated graphics with modern API coverage. Each wins in its own domain, but the database contains no direct test where both compete.