AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc B770 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for both AMD Instinct MI300 and Intel Arc B770 contains no benchmark scores, no win counts, and no rival comparisons. The head-to-head benchmark section is empty. The database shows zero wins for either part, zero average benchmark scores, and identical percentile rankings at 50 for both GPUs. Without measured performance results, the only numerical comparisons available come from the specification fields.

The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS. That places the MI300 at roughly 2.4 times the FP32 throughput of the Arc B770 based on the stated figures. In FP16, the MI300 again leads with 47.87 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Arc B770 achieves 39.32 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The MI300 still holds the higher FP16 number, but the gap narrows considerably.

Memory bandwidth presents another clear split. The MI300 offers 5.32 TB/s from its HBM3 stack, while the Arc B770 provides 512.0 GB/s from GDDR6. The MI300 bandwidth is more than ten times higher. Texture rate favors the MI300 as well, with 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s for the Arc B770. Pixel rate tells the opposite story: the MI300 records 0 MPixel/s, while the Arc B770 reaches 307.2 GPixel/s. That difference reflects their design purposes rather than raw capability.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, built for compute acceleration with no graphics output. Its chip is codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 1017 mm² and contains 153,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel Arc B770 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, codenamed BMG-G31, also on a 5 nm TSMC process. Its die size is 368 mm², and its transistor count is listed as unknown in the database.

The MI300 carries 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. It has no dedicated ray tracing cores listed. The Arc B770 carries 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The MI300 has no display outputs at all, while the Arc B770 includes 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The API support differs sharply: the MI300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the Arc B770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock behavior also diverges. The MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz. The Arc B770 starts at 2100 MHz base and boosts to 2400 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: the MI300 runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the Arc B770 runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. The MI300 memory bus is 8192 bit wide, versus 256 bit for the Arc B770. The MI300 uses HBM3 memory totaling 128 GB; the Arc B770 uses GDDR6 totaling 16 GB.

Power requirements show a significant gap. The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and recommends a 1000 W PSU. The Arc B770 has a TDP of 225 W, uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, and recommends a 550 W PSU. The MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Arc B770 has no dimensions recorded. The Arc B770 is listed as dual-slot, while the MI300 has no slot width recorded.

The bus interface also differs: the MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc B770 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The release dates place them years apart: the MI300 launched on 2023-01-03, and the Arc B770 is dated 2025-12-31. The MI300 predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the Arc B770 predecessor is Alchemist.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 19.66 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc B770.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI300 offers 128 GB of HBM3, while the Arc B770 offers 16 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B770 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc B770 has 32 ray tracing cores. The MI300 lists no ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI300 output video to a display?

A: No. The MI300 has no display outputs, whereas the Arc B770 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Arc B770 boosts to 2400 MHz, while the MI300 boosts to 1700 MHz.

Q: What power supply is recommended for each?

A: The MI300 suggests a 1000 W PSU, and the Arc B770 suggests a 550 W PSU.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI300 | Intel Arc B770 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe2-HPG |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | BMG-G31 |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Battlemage (Arc 7) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 368 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 14080 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 880 | 256 |

| ROPs | 0 | 128 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | null | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 307.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 614.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.87 TFLOPS | 19.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) | 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | null | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 550 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm 10.5 inches | null |

| Height | 111 mm 4.4 inches | null |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2025-12-31 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Alchemist |

The Verdict

The database shows two accelerators with fundamentally different roles. The AMD Instinct MI300 is a pure compute device: no display outputs, no graphics API support, no ROPs, and no ray tracing cores. Its strengths lie in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. The 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 figure, the 128 GB HBM3 pool, and the 5.32 TB/s bandwidth all point to workloads that stress dense arithmetic and large data movement, such as training or inference tasks that fit within the recorded specifications.

The Intel Arc B770 is a graphics-oriented part with full display outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, 128 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Its 307.2 GPixel/s pixel rate and 16 Gbps effective memory clock align with rasterization and rendering workloads. The higher base and boost clocks, 2100 MHz and 2400 MHz respectively, also support latency-sensitive graphics tasks. The lower TDP of 225 W and the smaller 368 mm² die make it a more compact solution in terms of power and physical footprint.

Neither part has benchmark scores in the database, so the verdict rests entirely on the architectural and specification data. Users needing compute density and massive memory bandwidth should look to the MI300. Users needing graphics output, ray tracing, and standard API support should look to the Arc B770. The MI300 offers more FP32 and FP16 throughput, more memory, and wider bus access. The Arc B770 offers graphics features, pixel throughput, and a lower power envelope. The choice depends on whether the workload demands compute acceleration or display-driven rendering.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins in compute-heavy scenarios based on the recorded data. Its FP32 performance of 47.87 TFLOPS exceeds the Arc B770 by a wide margin. Its FP16 output of 47.87 TFLOPS also tops the Arc B770, though the Arc B770 achieves a competitive 39.32 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The MI300 wins in memory capacity with 128 GB versus 16 GB, in memory bandwidth with 5.32 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s, and in texture rate with 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface also gives the MI300 a data transfer advantage over the Arc B770's PCIe 4.0 x16.

The Intel Arc B770 wins in graphics-oriented capabilities. Its 307.2 GPixel/s pixel rate stands in stark contrast to the MI300's 0 MPixel/s. The Arc B770 provides 128 ROPs, 32 ray tracing cores, and a full set of display outputs, none of which the MI300 offers. The Arc B770 also wins on clock speeds, with a 2100 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz and 1700 MHz for the MI300. The Arc B770 has a lower TDP of 225 W versus 600 W, a lower suggested PSU of 550 W versus 1000 W, and uses fewer power connectors. Its API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 makes it suitable for graphics software, while the MI300 lists N/A for all three.

The MI300 also wins on transistor count and die size, with 153,000 million transistors on 1017 mm², compared to an unknown transistor count and 368 mm² for the Arc B770. The MI300 has more shading units, 14,080 versus 4,096, and more TMUs, 880 versus 256. The Arc B770 wins on memory clock speed, 2000 MHz versus 1300 MHz, and on effective memory speed, 16 Gbps versus 5.2 Gbps. The release dates place the MI300 earlier at 2023-01-03 and the Arc B770 later at 2025-12-31.

The data indicates that the MI300 dominates in raw computational throughput and memory subsystem scale, while the Arc B770 dominates in graphics pipeline features, clock rates, and power efficiency. Each part wins where its architecture is designed to excel.