AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile shows two devices with fundamentally different purposes and performance envelopes. The AMD Instinct MI300 is a 600 W data center accelerator built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is a 65 W integrated GPU for laptops based on Xe-LPG architecture. Benchmark results indicate no overlap in their intended workloads.

The recorded data shows the AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is approximately 12 times the 3.942 TFLOPS of the Intel part. In FP16 compute, the MI300 again produces 47.87 TFLOPS, while the Intel GPU reaches 7.885 TFLOPS. The AMD accelerator provides 128 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, compared to the Intel integrated GPU which uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s, whereas the Intel GPU has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and a texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s.

The data indicates the AMD Instinct MI300 is designed for compute-intensive acceleration tasks requiring massive memory capacity and throughput. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is positioned for integrated graphics duties in portable devices, with API support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part reports no API support in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 12.1 times higher than the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile's 3.942 TFLOPS.

Q: What memory configurations do these devices use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory bus width.

Q: Which device has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has a boost clock of 2200 MHz, which is higher than the AMD Instinct MI300's boost clock of 1700 MHz.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU with 2x 8-pin power connectors. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has a TDP of 65 W and uses no external power connectors, being an integrated GPU.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI300 reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: What are the manufacturing process nodes?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, specifically designed for the Instinct (MIx) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC and contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The architecture is compute-optimized, with 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and zero ROPs, which indicates a design focused on throughput rather than rasterization output. The pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, confirming that this accelerator does not perform traditional graphics rasterization.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture with the Meteor Lake chip, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M generation. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The architecture includes 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s. The Intel GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a functional graphics processor for rendering workloads. The FP16 performance of 7.885 TFLOPS is double its FP32 figure, indicating a 2:1 ratio for half-precision compute, while the AMD part shows a 1:1 ratio with FP16 matching FP32 at 47.87 TFLOPS.

The AMD Instinct MI300 has no display outputs and uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has portable device dependent display outputs and uses a Ring Bus interface. The AMD accelerator has dimensions of 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Intel GPU has no recorded physical dimensions as it is an integrated part. The production status for the Intel GPU is Active, while the AMD part has no recorded production status.

Specification Differences

The two devices differ across nearly every specification field recorded in the database. The AMD Instinct MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The memory clock for the AMD part is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the Intel GPU uses system shared memory with no dedicated memory clock.

Memory capacity differs dramatically: the AMD part has 128 GB of HBM3, while the Intel part uses system shared memory. The memory bus width is 8192 bit for the AMD accelerator versus system shared for the Intel GPU. Memory bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s for the AMD part versus system dependent for the Intel part.

The shading unit count is 14,080 for AMD versus 896 for Intel. TMU count is 880 versus 56. ROP count is 0 for AMD versus 24 for Intel. The texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s for AMD versus 123.2 GTexel/s for Intel. The pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for AMD versus 52.80 GPixel/s for Intel. FP32 compute is 47.87 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS. FP16 compute is 47.87 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio versus 7.885 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Power consumption shows a TDP of 600 W for the AMD part versus 65 W for the Intel part. The AMD accelerator uses 2x 8-pin power connectors and suggests a 1000 W PSU, while the Intel integrated GPU has no external power connectors and no suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for AMD versus Ring Bus for Intel. The AMD part has no display outputs, while the Intel part has portable device dependent outputs.

The release dates differ: the AMD Instinct MI300 was released on 2023-01-03, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile was released on 2023-12-13. The AMD part has a predecessor of Radeon Instinct, while the Intel part has a predecessor of HD Graphics-M. Both have no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark scores in the database, but the specification-derived performance figures provide a clear comparison. The AMD Instinct MI300 leads in FP32 compute with 47.87 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS, a 12.1 times advantage. In FP16 compute, the AMD part delivers 47.87 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS, a 6.1 times advantage. The texture rate favors AMD at 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, an 12.1 times advantage. Memory bandwidth favors AMD at 5.32 TB/s versus system dependent for Intel, which cannot be directly quantified but represents a substantial gap given the 8192-bit bus and HBM3 technology.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile leads in boost clock at 2200 MHz versus 1700 MHz, a 29.4 percent advantage. The pixel rate favors Intel at 52.80 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s for AMD, since the AMD part performs no rasterization. The Intel GPU also leads in ROP count with 24 versus 0, and in API support with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 available, while the AMD part reports N/A for all graphics APIs.

The base clock difference shows Intel at 300 MHz versus AMD at 1000 MHz, but the boost clocks tell a different story. The Intel GPU's higher boost clock does not translate into higher compute throughput because of the substantially lower shading unit count and texture unit count. The data indicates that the AMD accelerator achieves its performance through massive parallel hardware rather than high clock speeds.

Power efficiency, when computed from the recorded figures, shows the AMD part delivers 47.87 TFLOPS at 600 W, while the Intel part delivers 3.942 TFLOPS at 65 W. The AMD part produces approximately 0.08 TFLOPS per watt, while the Intel part produces approximately 0.06 TFLOPS per watt. The AMD accelerator is more efficient per watt for FP32 compute, despite consuming over nine times the total power.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins decisively in compute throughput scenarios. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance, 128 GB HBM3 memory capacity, 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 1,496.0 GTexel/s texture rate position it for high-performance computing workloads that require massive parallel processing and large memory footprints. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides high-bandwidth host connectivity. The 1017 mm² die with 153,000 million transistors indicates a design optimized for maximum compute density.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile wins in integrated graphics scenarios. Its 65 W TDP makes it suitable for portable devices, and its status as an IGP with the slot width recorded as such confirms its integration into mobile processors. The 24 ROPs and pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s enable actual display output and rasterization, which the AMD part cannot perform. The support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can run modern graphics applications. The higher boost clock of 2200 MHz indicates responsiveness for burst workloads.

The production status of Active for the Intel GPU suggests ongoing availability, while the AMD part has no recorded production status. The release date of 2023-12-13 for Intel versus 2023-01-03 for AMD places the Intel GPU later in the timeline. The Intel GPU's predecessor of HD Graphics-M shows continuity in the mobile integrated graphics line, while the AMD part's predecessor of Radeon Instinct shows continuity in the data center accelerator line.

The data confirms that these two devices serve entirely different market segments. The AMD Instinct MI300 is for compute-intensive acceleration with no display capability, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is for graphics rendering and display in portable devices. Each device wins in its respective domain based on the recorded specifications, with no meaningful overlap in capability or intended usage.