AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc Pro B60 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 and Intel Arc Pro B60 occupy entirely different segments of the GPU market, and the recorded data confirms they are not direct competitors. The MI300 is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, a 600 W power draw, and a massive 128 GB HBM3 memory pool. The Arc Pro B60 is a professional workstation card with four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a 200 W power draw, and 24 GB of GDDR6 memory.

The MI300 wins in raw compute capability. Its FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS is nearly four times the Arc Pro B60's 12.29 TFLOPS. The MI300 also delivers 1,496.0 GTexel/s of texture fill rate versus 384.0 GTexel/s for the Intel card. Memory bandwidth is another decisive win: 5.32 TB/s versus 456.0 GB/s. These figures point to the MI300 being designed for large-scale data center workloads, AI training, and scientific simulation where massive parallel throughput and memory capacity are essential.

The Arc Pro B60 wins in practical workstation functionality. It has 20 ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and provides four display outputs. The MI300 lists no API support and no pixel rate, confirming it has no graphics rendering capability. For professionals who need to drive multiple monitors and run CAD, visualization, or content creation applications, the Arc Pro B60 is the functional choice despite its lower raw compute numbers.

The performance percentile data reinforces this split. The MI300 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Arc Pro B60 sits at the 20th percentile. However, the MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals in the database, so its percentile reflects its position in the overall distribution rather than any measured workload results. The Arc Pro B60 has eight recorded benchmark entries, with its strongest showing in PassMark G3D at 14,580 points and its weakest in PassMark DirectX 10 at 61 points.

Architecture Differences

The two cards use fundamentally different chip designs. The MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, which is AMD's compute-focused design lineage. The Arc Pro B60 uses the BMG-G21 chip built on Xe2-HPG architecture, Intel's high-performance graphics design. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the similarity ends there.

The MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc Pro B60 contains 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, with a density of 72.1M per mm². The MI300 die is nearly four times larger and holds nearly eight times more transistors. This scale difference reflects their divergent purposes: the MI300 is a data center accelerator built for massive parallel compute, while the Arc Pro B60 is a workstation GPU with a more modest footprint.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, achieving 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B60 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 across a 192-bit bus, achieving 456.0 GB/s. The MI300's memory bandwidth advantage is over 11 times that of the Intel card. The MI300 also has no pixel rate, no ROPs, and no ray tracing cores, while the Arc Pro B60 has 80 ROPs and 20 ray tracing cores.

Shading resources are heavily skewed toward the MI300. It has 14,080 shading units and 880 texture mapping units, compared to 2,560 shading units and 160 TMUs on the Arc Pro B60. Clock speeds tell a different story: the MI300 runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, while the Arc Pro B60 runs at 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. The Intel card's higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller resource count, but not enough to close the compute gap.

Power and physical characteristics also diverge. The MI300 draws 600 W and requires a 1000 W suggested power supply with two 8-pin connectors. The Arc Pro B60 draws 200 W, needs a 550 W PSU, and uses a single 8-pin connector. The MI300 measures 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the Arc Pro B60 is 167 mm long, 69 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, fitting a dual-slot form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, compared to 12.29 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Pro B60. The MI300 is approximately 3.9 times faster in this metric.

Q: Does the MI300 support display outputs?

A: No. The MI300 lists no display outputs, while the Arc Pro B60 provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 connections. The MI300 is purely a compute accelerator with no graphics rendering capability.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B60 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 456.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What API support does the Arc Pro B60 have?

A: The Arc Pro B60 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 lists no API support in the database.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP and suggests a 1000 W power supply with two 8-pin connectors. The Arc Pro B60 has a 200 W TDP and suggests a 550 W power supply with one 8-pin connector.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The MI300 has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Arc Pro B60 has 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. Both use a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300 | Intel Arc Pro B60 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | BMG-G21 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe2-HPG |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | 2375 MHz 19 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 456.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 14080 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 880 | 160 |

| ROPs | 0 | 80 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | N/A | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.87 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 200 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | 167 mm x 69 mm x 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2025-09-04 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 499 USD |

| Slot Width | N/A | Dual-slot |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two cards, and the MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores at all. The comparison must therefore rely on architectural specifications and the Arc Pro B60's standalone benchmark data.

The largest wins for the MI300 come from its compute resources. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 output is 3.9 times the Arc Pro B60's 12.29 TFLOPS. In FP16, the MI300 also holds a lead at 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) for the Intel card. Texture rate favors the MI300 at 1,496.0 GTexel/s, which is 3.9 times the Arc Pro B60's 384.0 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth gives the MI300 an 11.7 times advantage at 5.32 TB/s versus 456.0 GB/s.

The Arc Pro B60 wins decisively in graphics-oriented features. It has a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, while the MI300 has 0 MPixel/s. The Arc Pro B60 has 80 ROPs and 20 ray tracing cores; the MI300 has neither. The Intel card also supports modern graphics APIs, while the MI300 lists none. Clock speeds favor the Arc Pro B60 as well: 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost on the MI300.

The Arc Pro B60's recorded benchmarks show its performance profile. Its PassMark G3D score of 14,580 is the standout result, with PassMark G2D at 763 and PassMark GPU Compute at 7,029. DirectX tests range from 61 in DirectX 10 to 179 in DirectX 9, with DirectX 11 at 122 and DirectX 12 at 76. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test returns 2,646 points. The average benchmark score is 3,182, and the nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 at 3,163 (0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 at 3,210 (0.9% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 920M at 3,287 (3.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER at 3,075 (3.5% ahead).

The Verdict

The data shows these cards serve completely different purposes, and choosing between them depends entirely on the workload. The AMD Instinct MI300 is a data center compute accelerator with no display capability. Its 128 GB HBM3 memory, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it suitable for large-scale AI training, scientific computing, and memory-intensive parallel workloads. The 600 W power draw and 1000 W suggested PSU reflect its data center orientation.

The Intel Arc Pro B60 is a professional workstation GPU with display outputs, ray tracing support, and modern graphics API compatibility. Its 24 GB GDDR6 memory and 456.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest by comparison, but its 200 W power draw, dual-slot form factor, and four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it practical for desktop workstations. The 499 USD launch MSRP indicates a professional segment positioning.

For compute workloads that do not require graphics output, the MI300 is the clear choice based on its massive compute and memory advantages. For workstation use that requires driving displays, rendering graphics, or running API-compatible applications, the Arc Pro B60 is the only viable option between the two. The Arc Pro B60's nearest rival comparisons in the database show it clustered with older and lower-end NVIDIA cards, indicating its performance tier is far below the MI300's theoretical compute ceiling. The MI300 has no recorded benchmarks, so direct performance validation is unavailable, but the specification gap is substantial enough to define the separation.