AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc Graphics 32EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Instinct MI300 contains no benchmark entries, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. This means the direct comparison is limited to a one-sided measurement. The Intel part achieves a 733 score in that specific test, placing it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The AMD Instinct MI300 has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits at the 50th percentile, but that percentile reflects its position among all GPUs based on the absence of recorded 3DMark results rather than a competitive performance tier.

Looking at the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU's nearest rivals, the data shows a tightly clustered group. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU both produce an identical average score of 733, meaning the 32EU variant delivers exactly 0% delta compared to both. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M posts 723, which places the 32EU 1.4% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, putting the Intel part 2.4% behind that rival. These small deltas indicate that within this benchmark, the 32EU configuration performs nearly indistinguishably from both lower and higher EU counts in the same Arc Graphics-M family, and it trades places with older discrete mobile GPUs within a narrow margin.

The absence of any head-to-head benchmark entries in the database means there is no direct measurement where both products ran the same test. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU's sole recorded score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 stands as the only concrete numeric comparison point. The AMD Instinct MI300's zero benchmark count does not imply a performance value; it simply reflects that no standardized tests have been logged for that accelerator. Consequently, any analysis of relative performance must rely on the architectural and specification differences documented in the database, not on matched benchmark runs.

FAQ

Q: What is the only recorded benchmark score for the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU?

A: The database contains a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result for the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, with a score of 733. This places the part at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU compare to its nearest rivals in the recorded benchmark?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU scores exactly the same 733 as both the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, showing 0% delta. It is 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6470M (723) and 2.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (751).

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI300 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The AMD Instinct MI300 has an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals recorded. Its 50th percentile ranking reflects its position without any logged test results.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory on a 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: What is the difference in shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has 14,080 shading units and 880 texture mapping units. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has 256 shading units and 16 texture mapping units. The MI300 also has 0 ROPs, while the Intel part has 8 ROPs.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for the two products?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 is rated at a TDP of 600 W with a suggested power supply of 1000 W and two 8-pin power connectors. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has a TDP of 65 W, no dedicated power connectors, and no suggested PSU rating.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins decisively in raw compute throughput based on the recorded specifications. Its FP32 performance reaches 47.87 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU delivers 998.4 GFLOPS, which is just under 1 TFLOPS. That places the MI300 roughly 48 times higher in single-precision floating-point work, a massive gap driven by the difference in shader count and clock behavior. The MI300's texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus the Intel part's 31.20 GTexel/s further reinforces its dominance in fill-rate-limited workloads. The MI300 also provides 128 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel part relies on system shared memory with bandwidth that depends entirely on the host platform.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU wins in efficiency and integration. Its 65 W TDP is a fraction of the MI300's 600 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connectors, drawing everything from the motherboard. The Intel part also supports display outputs (motherboard dependent) and a full API stack including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300 lists no display outputs and N/A for all three APIs. For graphics rendering on a desktop or mobile platform, the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is a functional integrated GPU with a recorded 3DMark score, whereas the MI300 is a compute accelerator with no display or graphics API support in the database. The Intel part also has a smaller footprint at 243 mm² versus 1017 mm², and it is built on a more advanced 3 nm process compared to the MI300's 5 nm node.

The database shows the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has an active production status, while the MI300's production status is not listed. The Intel part also has a more recent release date of 2023-01-03 for the MI300 and 2024-10-23 for the Intel part, meaning the latter is newer by roughly 21 months. In practical terms, the MI300 is designed for datacenter-scale compute with no graphics output, while the Intel part is an integrated GPU meant to drive displays and handle mainstream graphics workloads. Each wins in its intended domain: the MI300 for massive parallel computation, the Intel part for everyday graphics and low-power integration.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across almost every measurable specification. The AMD Instinct MI300 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses a 3 nm process, also from TSMC. Transistor counts diverge sharply: the MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per mm². The Intel part has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a density of 73.3 million per mm². Clock speeds vary as well: the MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1700 MHz, while the Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base and a 1950 MHz boost. The memory clock also differs, with the MI300 listing 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus system shared for the Intel part.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are entirely different. The MI300 provides 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses system shared memory, with no dedicated capacity, bus width, or bandwidth figures. Pixel rate shows a stark contrast: the MI300 lists 0 MPixel/s due to having no ROPs, while the Intel part achieves 15.60 GPixel/s with 8 ROPs. Texture rate follows the compute gap: 1,496.0 GTexel/s for the MI300 versus 31.20 GTexel/s for the Intel part. FP16 performance also differs in ratio: the MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Intel part produces 1.997 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications separate the two further. The MI300 has a 600 W TDP, two 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 1000 W, with dimensions of 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Intel part has a 65 W TDP, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no listed dimensions, classified as an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300 versus Ring Bus for the Intel part. Display outputs are absent on the MI300 but motherboard dependent on the Intel part. API support is another differentiator: the MI300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture using the Aqua Vanjaram chip, belonging to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Arrow Lake-S chip, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: CDNA 3.0 is a compute-focused architecture optimized for massive parallel throughput, while Xe-LPG is a graphics-oriented architecture designed for integrated rendering. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs but zero ROPs, confirming its compute-first orientation with no rasterization pipeline. The Intel part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, enabling full graphics output.

The MI300's memory architecture uses dedicated HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus, a configuration that provides immense bandwidth for datacenter workloads. The Intel part relies on system shared memory, which is typical for integrated GPUs that share the host's memory pool. The MI300 has no display outputs and no graphics API support, meaning it cannot drive a monitor or run conventional graphics applications. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU supports display outputs through the motherboard and fully supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a complete graphics solution.

Transistor density highlights the architectural differences. The MI300 achieves 150.4 million transistors per mm² on a 5 nm node, while the Intel part achieves 73.3 million per mm² on a 3 nm node. The MI300's lower node but higher density indicates a design with more compute units packed into a massive die. The Intel part uses a smaller, more efficient die with fewer transistors but on a more advanced process. The release dates also reflect generational separation: the MI300 launched on 2023-01-03, while the Intel part launched on 2024-10-23. The predecessor relationships differ as well, with the MI300 succeeding the Radeon Instinct line and the Intel part succeeding HD Graphics-M. Neither product lists a successor in the database.