AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for this pairing, and neither part has an average benchmark score or a win tally. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database, yet their performance profiles could hardly be more different in scale. The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile delivers 1,382.4 GFLOPS, which is 1.3824 TFLOPS. The Instinct MI300 therefore provides roughly 34.6 times the raw FP32 compute of the Intel part, a gap driven by the former's 14,080 shading units versus the latter's 384 shading units.

In FP16 throughput, the Instinct MI300 records 47.87 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate equals its FP32 rate. The Intel part records 2.765 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. Even with that 2:1 advantage, the Intel part's FP16 output is still only about 5.8 percent of the Instinct MI300's FP16 output. The texture rate comparison shows a similar chasm: the Instinct MI300 achieves 1,496.0 GTexel/s from its 880 texture mapping units, whereas the Intel part achieves 43.20 GTexel/s from its 24 TMUs. That places the Instinct MI300 at roughly 34.6 times the texture fill rate, matching the shading unit ratio.

Pixel rate is where the Intel part posts a non-zero result. The Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile reaches 14.40 GPixel/s with its 8 ROPs, while the Instinct MI300 records 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs at all. This is a fundamental design divergence: the Instinct MI300 has no display outputs and no raster output stage, making it unsuitable for traditional pixel-bound graphics workloads, whereas the Intel part is an integrated graphics processor for mobile systems with portable device dependent display outputs.

Memory bandwidth also separates the two decisively. The Instinct MI300 carries 128 GB of HBM3 on a 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no fixed figure exists in the database. The Instinct MI300's memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel part's memory clock is simply listed as system shared. The recorded data shows no overlapping benchmark results, so all comparisons here derive from specification-level measurements rather than executed workloads.

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile?

A: The Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile delivers 1,382.4 GFLOPS. The AMD part provides approximately 34.6 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Instinct MI300 has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from 128 GB of HBM3 on a 8192-bit bus. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no fixed bandwidth figure is recorded.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile support display outputs?

A: Yes, its display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they vary by the host system. The Instinct MI300 has no display outputs at all.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: The Instinct MI300 has 14,080 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has 384 shading units. The AMD part also has 880 texture mapping units versus 24 on the Intel part.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile achieves 14.40 GPixel/s from its 8 ROPs. The Instinct MI300 records 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has a boost clock of 1800 MHz, which is higher than the Instinct MI300's boost clock of 1700 MHz. The Intel part also has a lower base clock of 300 MHz versus 1000 MHz on the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different architectural lineages. The Instinct MI300 uses CDNA 3.0, built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses Xe-LPG, built on the Meteor Lake chip, and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation. The process nodes diverge sharply: the Instinct MI300 is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The Instinct MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel part has no recorded transistor count, die size, or density in the database.

Compute architecture differs in fundamental ways. The Instinct MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and zero ROPs, which aligns with its role as a compute accelerator with no rasterization pipeline. The Intel part has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, giving it a complete graphics pipeline capable of pixel output. Neither part has recorded RT cores or tensor cores in the database. The API support reflects this split: the Instinct MI300 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, whereas the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The Instinct MI300 uses dedicated HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, plus a fixed memory clock of 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth, meaning its memory performance scales with the host platform. The Instinct MI300's 128 GB capacity dwarfs any typical shared memory allocation, though the database records no specific shared memory figure for the Intel part. The power delivery and physical design also reflect their different deployment targets: the Instinct MI300 has a 600 W TDP with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1000 W, while the Intel part has a 28 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU because it is an integrated graphics processor.

Specification Differences

The recorded specification differences are extensive. The process node differs: 5 nm for the Instinct MI300 versus 10 nm for the Intel part. The foundry differs: TSMC versus Intel. Transistor count is 153,000 million for the AMD part, with no figure recorded for the Intel part. Die size is 1017 mm² for the AMD part, with no figure for the Intel part. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the AMD part, with no figure for the Intel part.

Clock specifications differ in both base and boost. The Instinct MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz, while the Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1800 MHz. The memory clock also differs: 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective on the AMD part versus system shared on the Intel part. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ: 128 GB HBM3 with 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s on the AMD part versus system shared with system dependent bandwidth on the Intel part.

Shader resources differ by orders of magnitude. Shading units: 14,080 versus 384. TMUs: 880 versus 24. ROPs: 0 versus 8. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 14.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 43.20 GTexel/s. FP32: 47.87 TFLOPS versus 1,382.4 GFLOPS. FP16: 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 2.765 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 600 W versus 28 W. Slot width: not recorded for the AMD part versus IGP for the Intel part. Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus none. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs: no outputs versus portable device dependent. API support: all N/A versus DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. Dimensions: the AMD part is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, while the Intel part has no recorded dimensions. Release dates differ: 2023-01-03 for the AMD part versus 2023-12-13 for the Intel part. Production status: not recorded for the AMD part versus active for the Intel part. Predecessors differ: Radeon Instinct for the AMD part versus HD Graphics-M for the Intel part.

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI300 wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 47.87 TFLOPS is roughly 34.6 times the Intel part's 1,382.4 GFLOPS. Its FP16 output of 47.87 TFLOPS is about 17.3 times the Intel part's 2.765 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s is roughly 34.6 times the Intel part's 43.20 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s from 128 GB of HBM3 on a 8192-bit bus gives it a massive advantage in data-intensive workloads, especially those that require large memory pools or high sustained bandwidth. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface also allows external data transfer at a wider bus width than the Intel part's Ring Bus, which is limited to the host processor's memory subsystem.

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile wins in traditional rasterization and mobile integration. It has 8 ROPs and a pixel rate of 14.40 GPixel/s, while the Instinct MI300 has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling standard graphics APIs, while the Instinct MI300 lists all APIs as N/A. The Intel part has display outputs, portable device dependent, whereas the Instinct MI300 has no outputs. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock at 1800 MHz versus 1700 MHz, and its 28 W TDP makes it suitable for mobile integration, whereas the 600 W TDP of the Instinct MI300 requires a 1000 W suggested PSU and 2x 8-pin power connectors. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it operates within a mobile processor's power envelope and shares system memory. The Instinct MI300 is a discrete accelerator with no display path, designed for compute tasks rather than graphics output.

The production status also favors the Intel part, which is listed as active, while the Instinct MI300 has no recorded production status. The Intel part is also newer, released on 2023-12-13 versus 2023-01-03 for the AMD part. In a workload split, the Instinct MI300 is the choice for FP32 or FP16 compute, high-bandwidth memory access, or large dataset processing. The Intel part is the choice for pixel rendering, API-driven graphics, mobile deployment, or display output. Neither part has tensor or RT core data recorded, so no comparison is possible in those domains. The database shows no benchmark scores for either part, so all win assessments derive from specification-level measurements.