AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded database profiles for the AMD Instinct MI300 and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile describe two accelerators built for entirely different purposes. The MI300 is a discrete, datacenter-oriented compute accelerator with a 600 W TDP, while the Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is an integrated graphics processor with a 65 W TDP. The data shows no benchmark entries for either part, and both share a median percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs. Without recorded benchmark scores, the verdict rests on architectural capacity and stated specifications rather than measured performance deltas.

The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, a figure that is roughly 26.7 times higher than the 1.792 TFLOPS of the Arc part. The MI300 also provides 128 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Intel part relies on System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. For compute-heavy workloads that fit within a 600 W power envelope, the MI300 is the only viable choice based on the data. The Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile, by contrast, is the only one of the two with active production status, a display output path (Portable Device Dependent), and a full graphics API stack including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 lists no display outputs and marks all graphics APIs as N/A. For any role involving rendering to a screen or running standard graphics APIs, the Intel part is the functional option.

The data does not support a direct performance comparison because the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. Instead, the analysis separates the parts by design intent: the MI300 is a compute accelerator with no graphics output, and the Arc 64EU Mobile is an integrated GPU for portable devices.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturers and use distinct architectures. The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 153,000 million transistors onto a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Meteor Lake chip, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. Transistor count, die size, and density are not recorded for the Intel part.

The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and no raster operation units, resulting in a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate differs substantially: the MI300 delivers 1,496.0 GTexel/s, while the Intel part delivers 56.00 GTexel/s. The MI300 also leads in FP32 compute at 47.87 TFLOPS versus 1.792 TFLOPS, and in FP16 the MI300 matches its FP32 rate at 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Intel part reaches 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1).

Memory architecture is a major split. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth and lists no dedicated memory size, type, or bus width. The MI300 connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. The MI300 requires 2x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1000 W, while the Intel part has no recorded power connectors or suggested PSU. The MI300 is a 267 mm card, 111 mm tall, while the Intel part is an IGP with no recorded dimensions.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI300 runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, with memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base and 1750 MHz boost, with memory clock listed as System Shared.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32, which is about 26.7 times the 1.792 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile.

Q: Does either GPU support standard graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI300 lists all graphics APIs as N/A and has no display outputs.

Q: What type of memory does each GPU use?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the power requirement for each GPU?

A: The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 1000 W PSU. The Intel part has a 65 W TDP with no recorded power connectors or suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile boosts to 1750 MHz, slightly higher than the MI300's 1700 MHz boost. The MI300 has a much higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz for the Intel part.

Q: Are both GPUs currently in production?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has an active production status. The production status for the AMD Instinct MI300 is not recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile:

• Manufacturer: AMD versus Intel
• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram versus Meteor Lake
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 versus Xe-LPG
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake)
• Process Node: 5 nm (TSMC) versus 10 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus not recorded
• Die Size: 1017 mm² versus not recorded
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² versus not recorded
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1700 MHz versus 1750 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus System Shared
• Memory Size: 128 GB versus System Shared
• Memory Type: HBM3 versus System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit versus System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus System Dependent
• Shading Units: 14,080 versus 512
• TMUs: 880 versus 32
• ROPs: 0 versus 16
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 47.87 TFLOPS versus 1.792 TFLOPS
• FP16: 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 600 W versus 65 W
• Slot Width: not recorded versus IGP
• Power Connectors: 2x 8-pin versus not recorded
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus not recorded
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent
• APIs: DirectX/OpenGL/Vulkan N/A versus DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm versus not recorded
• Production Status: not recorded versus Active
• Release Date: 2023-01-03 versus 2023-12-13
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus HD Graphics-M

Fields that match or are absent in both include series (null), codename (null), RT cores (null), tensor cores (null), width (null), launch MSRP (null), benchmark entries (empty), and nearest rivals (empty).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database is empty, meaning no measured performance comparisons exist for these two parts. The wins are recorded as 0 for each side. Instead, the specification data provides the only basis for comparison.

The largest computational gap appears in FP32 throughput. The MI300 achieves 47.87 TFLOPS, which is about 26.7 times the Intel part's 1.792 TFLOPS. In FP16, the MI300 holds a 47.87 TFLOPS rate, while the Intel part reaches 3.584 TFLOPS, a difference of roughly 13.4 times. Texture rate favors the MI300 at 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s, a 26.7 times advantage that mirrors the FP32 ratio.

The Intel part wins on pixel processing. It delivers 28.00 GPixel/s, while the MI300 records 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock at 1750 MHz versus 1700 MHz, though the MI300 has a far higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz. The Intel part is the only one with a functional graphics API stack: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory bandwidth is one-sided. The MI300 provides 5.32 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3 interface, while the Intel part lists System Dependent bandwidth with shared system memory. The MI300 also has 128 GB of dedicated memory, while the Intel part has no dedicated memory capacity recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins in every compute-heavy specification. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and 47.87 TFLOPS FP16 rates place it in a different performance class from the Intel part. The 128 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth suits workloads that require large resident data sets and high memory throughput. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and 267 mm board dimensions indicate a discrete accelerator designed for server or workstation installation. The 600 W TDP, 2x 8-pin connectors, and 1000 W suggested PSU confirm that this part expects a dedicated power delivery system. The MI300 also carries the newer 5 nm process from TSMC and a transistor count of 153,000 million, which supports its compute density.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile wins in integrated and display-oriented roles. It has 16 ROPs and a 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, allowing actual rasterization output, while the MI300 has none. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it functional for graphics applications and games. Its display outputs are Portable Device Dependent, which fits its IGP slot width and Ring Bus interface. The 65 W TDP suits mobile platforms with constrained cooling. The Intel part also has active production status, while the MI300's status is not recorded. The release date of 2023-12-13 for the Intel part places it later than the MI300's 2023-01-03 release, and its predecessor is HD Graphics-M, indicating a lineage of integrated graphics.

The data indicates a clean split: the MI300 for compute density, memory capacity, and bandwidth; the Arc 64EU Mobile for graphics output, API support, and low-power integrated deployment.