AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc G3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI300 and the Intel Arc G3. Both entries list an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of zero, and a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database. The wins counters for both sides are also zero. This means the database has no measured performance comparisons between these two parts, so a direct numerical walkthrough of wins in specific tests is not possible from the available facts.

The absence of benchmark data does not indicate parity. It reflects that neither product has been tested in the shared workload suite used by the database. The AMD Instinct MI300 and the Intel Arc G3 occupy entirely different segments, and their respective specification sheets point to vastly different performance envelopes. However, without recorded scores, any quantitative head-to-head statement would be unsupported. The only defensible conclusion from the head-to-head section is that the database currently holds no comparative measurements for this pair.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Its chip is designated Aqua Vanjaram, and it belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The Intel Arc G3 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. Its chip is designated Panther Lake, and it belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. The process node difference is significant: 5 nm versus 3 nm, with the Intel part using a smaller fabrication process.

The MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc G3 lists transistor count, die size, and density as unknown or null. The MI300 is a massive discrete accelerator, while the Arc G3 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no discrete dimensions recorded.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The MI300 carries 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, with 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Arc G3 uses system shared memory, with shared type, shared bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. Its memory clock is listed as system shared as well. The MI300 has a dedicated high-bandwidth memory subsystem; the Arc G3 relies on the host system's main memory.

The compute resources are also very different. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units (TMUs), and zero ROPs. The Arc G3 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The MI300 has no ray tracing cores listed, while the Arc G3 includes 10 ray tracing cores. The MI300 has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, consistent with a compute accelerator lacking display outputs, while the Arc G3 has a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 1,496.0 GTexel/s for the MI300 versus 96.00 GTexel/s for the Arc G3.

FP32 throughput is 47.87 TFLOPS for the MI300, while the Arc G3 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) for the MI300 and 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Arc G3. The MI300's FP16 rate matches its FP32 rate, indicating a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Arc G3's FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate, indicating a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical characteristics differ completely. The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 1000 W power supply. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The Arc G3 has a TDP of 25 W, uses no power connectors, has no suggested PSU, and uses an IGP bus interface. The MI300 has no display outputs; the Arc G3's display outputs are portable device dependent. The MI300 has physical dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height. The Arc G3 has no recorded dimensions.

API support also differs. The MI300 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The Arc G3 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 is a compute-oriented accelerator without graphics APIs, while the Arc G3 is a full graphics processor supporting modern APIs.

Release dates are recorded: the MI300 launched on 2023-01-03, and the Arc G3 is dated 2026-05-31. The MI300's predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the Arc G3 has no predecessor recorded. The Arc G3 has a production status of Active; the MI300's production status is not listed.

The Verdict

The data shows two products with no shared benchmark results, so a verdict on relative performance must rely entirely on specifications. For compute-heavy workloads, the MI300 dominates on every recorded compute metric. It has 14,080 shading units versus 1,280, an FP32 rate of 47.87 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS, and memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s versus system dependent bandwidth. The MI300 also has a 600 W TDP, a 1000 W suggested PSU, and a 1017 mm² die, all of which indicate a high-power, high-throughput accelerator.

For graphics and integrated use, the Arc G3 is the only one with display outputs and graphics API support. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300 has N/A for all three. The Arc G3 has 20 ROPs and a 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate; the MI300 has 0 ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The Arc G3 also has 10 ray tracing cores, which the MI300 lacks. The Arc G3's 25 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for portable devices, as indicated by its display output description.

The MI300 is the clear choice for raw compute throughput, large memory capacity, and high bandwidth. The Arc G3 is the clear choice for graphics rendering, ray tracing, and integrated deployment. The database contains no measured scores to override these specification-based conclusions.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ on nearly every recorded specification field. The MI300 uses a 5 nm TSMC process; the Arc G3 uses a 3 nm Intel process. The MI300 has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die with a 150.4M per mm² density; the Arc G3 has unknown transistor count and die size. The MI300 has base and boost clocks of 1000 MHz and 1700 MHz, while the Arc G3 has 300 MHz and 2400 MHz. The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth; the Arc G3 has system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and 0 ROPs; the Arc G3 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The MI300 has no ray tracing cores; the Arc G3 has 10. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI300 and 48.00 GPixel/s for the Arc G3. Texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 47.87 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS. FP16 is 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP is 600 W versus 25 W. Power connectors are 2x 8-pin for the MI300 and none for the Arc G3. Suggested PSU is 1000 W for the MI300 and not listed for the Arc G3. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300 and IGP for the Arc G3. Display outputs are none for the MI300 and portable device dependent for the Arc G3. DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are N/A for the MI300, while the Arc G3 supports 12 Ultimate, 4.6, and 1.4. The MI300 has dimensions of 267 mm by 111 mm; the Arc G3 has none. Release dates are 2023-01-03 versus 2026-05-31. Production status is not listed for the MI300 and Active for the Arc G3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has an FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS, which is higher than the Intel Arc G3's 6.144 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc G3 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc G3 has 10 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What graphics APIs does the AMD Instinct MI300 support?

A: The MI300 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. It has no display outputs and appears to be a compute-only accelerator.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the Intel Arc G3?

A: The Arc G3 uses system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. Its memory clock is also listed as system shared.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, while the Intel Arc G3 has a TDP of 25 W. The MI300 also suggests a 1000 W power supply and uses 2x 8-pin power connectors.

Q: Which one has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Arc G3 uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The AMD Instinct MI300 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins on all recorded compute throughput and memory capacity metrics. Its FP32 rate of 47.87 TFLOPS is roughly 7.8 times the Arc G3's 6.144 TFLOPS. Its FP16 rate of 47.87 TFLOPS compares to the Arc G3's 12.29 TFLOPS. The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, versus the Arc G3's system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The MI300's texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s is similarly far ahead of the Arc G3's 96.00 GTexel/s. The MI300 also has 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs, compared to 1,280 and 40 respectively. This makes the MI300 the winner for compute-heavy applications such as large-scale data processing, AI training, and scientific simulation, where its massive memory pool and high bandwidth are decisive.

The Intel Arc G3 wins on graphics-specific features and efficiency. It is the only one of the two with display outputs, listed as portable device dependent, and the only one with graphics API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc G3 has 20 ROPs and a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s, while the MI300 has 0 ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The Arc G3 also has 10 ray tracing cores, which the MI300 lacks entirely. Its 25 W TDP is dramatically lower than the MI300's 600 W, and it uses no power connectors, making it suitable for integrated deployment in portable devices. The Arc G3 also has a higher boost clock of 2400 MHz versus the MI300's 1700 MHz, and it uses a smaller 3 nm process at Intel versus the MI300's 5 nm at TSMC.

The use-case split is clear. The MI300 is for dedicated compute acceleration where memory capacity, bandwidth, and FP32/FP16 throughput are paramount. The Arc G3 is for graphics rendering, ray tracing, and low-power integrated systems where display output and modern API support are required. The database contains no benchmark scores to quantify these differences in real workloads, but the recorded specifications point to two entirely distinct roles.