AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no recorded performance scores for either the AMD Instinct MI300 or the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile. Both entries register an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. Consequently, no direct performance comparison can be drawn from measured results. The percentile versus all GPUs field places both parts at the 50th percentile, but this figure is derived from the absence of data rather than a meaningful performance ranking. Without benchmark outcomes, the data cannot indicate which part is faster in any workload. The only objective comparisons available come from the architectural specifications and the feature sets listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, and is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 153,000 million transistors on a die measuring 1017 mm², yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip, built on Xe-LPG architecture, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel. The database lists no transistor count, die size, or density for the Intel part, so those metrics cannot be compared.

The Instinct MI300 is a discrete accelerator with a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile is an integrated graphics processor using a Ring Bus interface. The AMD part has no display outputs, whereas the Intel part has display outputs described as portable device dependent. The AMD accelerator does not support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the Intel mobile GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory configurations differ drastically. The Instinct MI300 carries 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile relies on system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory clock. The AMD part runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and 1700 MHz boost, while the Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 2250 MHz boost.

The Instinct MI300 uses 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, producing a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a texture rate of 144.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 72.00 GPixel/s. FP32 compute reaches 47.87 TFLOPS on the AMD part, while the Intel part delivers 4.608 TFLOPS. FP16 performance on the AMD part is 47.87 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 9.216 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Power requirements place these parts in different classes. The Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and requires a 1000 W suggested power supply. It measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W, uses no external power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. As an IGP, it has no physical dimensions listed.

Release dates also differ. The Instinct MI300 launched on January 3, 2023, with the Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile launched on December 13, 2023, with the HD Graphics-M as its predecessor. The Intel part is listed as active in production, while the AMD part has no production status recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI300 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 47.87 TFLOPS is roughly ten times the Intel part's 4.608 TFLOPS. FP16 output of 47.87 TFLOPS versus 9.216 TFLOPS shows a similar gap. Texture rate favors the AMD part at 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 144.0 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is overwhelmingly in favor of the Instinct MI300 at 5.32 TB/s compared to system dependent shared memory on the Intel part. The 128 GB HBM3 capacity dwarfs the shared memory approach. The AMD accelerator also carries a much larger transistor budget at 153,000 million, indicating a far more complex design.

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile wins in areas relevant to integrated graphics deployment. Its ROP count of 32 enables a pixel rate of 72.00 GPixel/s, while the AMD part has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel part supports a full API stack including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it usable for general graphics workloads. The AMD part lists no API support. The Intel part has display outputs, whereas the AMD part has none. The Intel part's boost clock of 2250 MHz exceeds the AMD part's 1700 MHz, though this is offset by the AMD part's much higher shader count. The Intel part consumes 28 W versus 600 W, making it suitable for mobile systems. The Intel part is active in production, indicating current availability, while the AMD part's production status is unrecorded.

The use-case split is clear. The Instinct MI300 targets compute-heavy environments with massive memory bandwidth and FP32 throughput, no display capability, and no graphics API support. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile targets integrated graphics in portable devices, with display outputs, API compatibility, and modest power draw. The AMD part has no recorded benchmarks, so its real-world compute performance cannot be measured from the database. Likewise, the Intel part has no recorded benchmarks, so its graphics performance cannot be quantified. The specification data alone supports these functional distinctions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile delivers 4.608 TFLOPS.

Q: What memory configurations do these two parts use?

A: The Instinct MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory on a 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan?

A: No. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI300 lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each part?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and uses two 8-pin power connectors. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W and uses no external power connectors.

Q: Which part has display outputs?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has display outputs described as portable device dependent. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no display outputs.

Q: What are the release dates for these products?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 was released on January 3, 2023. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile was released on December 13, 2023.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every recorded specification field.

Architecture: CDNA 3.0 for the Instinct MI300, Xe-LPG for the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile.

Chip: Aqua Vanjaram for the AMD part, Meteor Lake for the Intel part.

Process node: 5 nm at TSMC for the AMD part, 10 nm at Intel for the Intel part.

Transistors: 153,000 million for the AMD part, not listed for the Intel part.

Die size: 1017 mm² for the AMD part, not listed for the Intel part.

Transistor density: 150.4M per mm² for the AMD part, not listed for the Intel part.

Base clock: 1000 MHz for the AMD part, 300 MHz for the Intel part.

Boost clock: 1700 MHz for the AMD part, 2250 MHz for the Intel part.

Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the AMD part, system shared for the Intel part.

Memory size: 128 GB for the AMD part, system shared for the Intel part.

Memory type: HBM3 for the AMD part, system shared for the Intel part.

Memory bus width: 8192 bit for the AMD part, system shared for the Intel part.

Memory bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s for the AMD part, system dependent for the Intel part.

Shading units: 14,080 for the AMD part, 1,024 for the Intel part.

TMUs: 880 for the AMD part, 64 for the Intel part.

ROPs: 0 for the AMD part, 32 for the Intel part.

Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s for the AMD part, 72.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part.

Texture rate: 1,496.0 GTexel/s for the AMD part, 144.0 GTexel/s for the Intel part.

FP32: 47.87 TFLOPS for the AMD part, 4.608 TFLOPS for the Intel part.

FP16: 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) for the AMD part, 9.216 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Intel part.

TDP: 600 W for the AMD part, 28 W for the Intel part.

Power connectors: 2x 8-pin for the AMD part, not listed for the Intel part.

Suggested PSU: 1000 W for the AMD part, not listed for the Intel part.

Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the AMD part, Ring Bus for the Intel part.

Display outputs: No outputs for the AMD part, portable device dependent for the Intel part.

DirectX: N/A for the AMD part, 12 (12_1) for the Intel part.

OpenGL: N/A for the AMD part, 4.6 for the Intel part.

Vulkan: N/A for the AMD part, 1.4 for the Intel part.

Dimensions: 267 mm length and 111 mm height for the AMD part, not listed for the Intel part.

Slot width: not listed for the AMD part, IGP for the Intel part.

Production status: not listed for the AMD part, active for the Intel part.

Release date: January 3, 2023 for the AMD part, December 13, 2023 for the Intel part.

Predecessor: Radeon Instinct for the AMD part, HD Graphics-M for the Intel part.

The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP, and the Intel part also has no recorded launch MSRP.