AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc Pro B70 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI300 and Intel Arc Pro B70. Both entries show an empty benchmark array, zero wins for either processor, and an identical percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs. The average benchmark score for both is zero, meaning the database has no measured performance data to compare these two accelerators directly. Without recorded frames per second, compute scores, or synthetic test results, a numerical performance comparison cannot be established from the available facts. The data simply does not include any benchmark outcomes for either product.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The Intel Arc Pro B70 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, built on the BMG-G31 chip, and belongs to the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the similarity ends there.

The AMD chip contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The Intel chip's transistor count is listed as unknown, but its die size is 368 mm², substantially smaller than the AMD die. The MI300's massive die reflects its data-center oriented design, while the Arc Pro B70's smaller die suggests a more compact implementation.

Memory configurations differ fundamentally. The MI300 carries 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B70 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 608.0 GB/s. The AMD part has a 256-bit memory clock of 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel part runs its memory at 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective. The MI300's memory bandwidth is roughly 8.75 times higher, a decisive advantage for memory-bound workloads.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, and its texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s. The Arc Pro B70 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 358.4 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 716.8 GTexel/s. The MI300 has about 3.44 times more shading units and 3.44 times more TMUs, but it has no ROPs at all, whereas the Intel part has 128. The MI300 also shows no ray tracing cores, while the Arc Pro B70 includes 32 ray tracing cores.

Floating-point throughput tells a nuanced story. The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, at a 1:1 ratio. The Arc Pro B70 delivers 22.94 TFLOPS for FP32 and 45.88 TFLOPS for FP16, at a 2:1 ratio. In FP32, the AMD part leads by roughly 2.09 times. In FP16, the AMD part leads by only about 1.04 times, since the Intel architecture doubles its FP16 rate relative to FP32.

Clock speeds favor Intel substantially. The Arc Pro B70 has a base clock of 2280 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The Intel part's boost clock is about 1.65 times higher, which partially compensates for its lower shader count in clock-sensitive workloads.

Power requirements differ by a wide margin. The MI300 draws a TDP of 600 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors with a suggested 1000 W power supply. The Arc Pro B70 draws 230 W, needs a single 8-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W power supply. The MI300 consumes about 2.61 times the power of the Intel part.

Display capabilities are absent on the AMD accelerator. The MI300 lists no display outputs, while the Arc Pro B70 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. API support follows the same pattern: the MI300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the Arc Pro B70 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Physical dimensions are nearly identical in length and height. Both cards measure 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length. The MI300 is 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall, while the Arc Pro B70 is 110 mm (4.3 inches) tall. The Intel card is a dual-slot design with a width of 39 mm (1.5 inches); the MI300's slot width is not recorded. The MI300 was released on January 3, 2023, while the Arc Pro B70 has a release date of March 25, 2026, a gap of over three years. The MI300's predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the Arc Pro B70 has no recorded predecessor. The Arc Pro B70 has a launch MSRP of 949 USD; the MI300 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data indicates two accelerators designed for different purposes. The AMD Instinct MI300 is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and an enormous memory pool of 128 GB HBM3. Its 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth position it for large-scale data processing, scientific computing, and workloads that require massive memory capacity. The absence of ROPs and graphics APIs confirms it is not intended for traditional rendering tasks.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 is a workstation-oriented graphics card. It has display outputs, full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, 128 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Its 32 GB GDDR6 memory and 608.0 GB/s bandwidth are substantial for professional graphics workloads, but far below the MI300's memory subsystem. The 230 W power draw and single 8-pin connector make it far easier to integrate into standard workstations compared to the MI300's 600 W requirement.

From the recorded data, users needing raw FP32 compute, massive memory capacity, or extreme memory bandwidth should select the MI300. Users needing a dual-slot graphics card with display outputs, ray tracing, and full graphics API support should select the Arc Pro B70. The MI300 leads in shading units, TMUs, texture rate, FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and transistor count. The Arc Pro B70 leads in clock speed, ROPs, pixel rate, ray tracing cores, power efficiency as expressed by TDP, display outputs, and API support. Neither product can substitute for the other in its primary role.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ in every major specification category recorded in the database. The chip names differ: Aqua Vanjaram for AMD versus BMG-G31 for Intel. The architectures differ: CDNA 3.0 versus Xe2-HPG. The generations differ: Instinct (MIx) versus Battlemage (Pro Series). The process nodes are identical at 5 nm, and both use TSMC as the foundry.

Transistors stand at 153,000 million for AMD versus unknown for Intel. Die size is 1017 mm² for AMD versus 368 mm² for Intel. Transistor density is 150.4 million per mm² for AMD versus null for Intel. Base clock is 1000 MHz for AMD versus 2280 MHz for Intel. Boost clock is 1700 MHz for AMD versus 2800 MHz for Intel. Memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective for AMD versus 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective for Intel.

Memory size is 128 GB HBM3 for AMD versus 32 GB GDDR6 for Intel. Bus width is 8192 bit for AMD versus 256 bit for Intel. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s for AMD versus 608.0 GB/s for Intel. Shading units are 14,080 for AMD versus 4,096 for Intel. TMUs are 880 for AMD versus 256 for Intel. ROPs are 0 for AMD versus 128 for Intel. Ray tracing cores are null for AMD versus 32 for Intel.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for AMD versus 358.4 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s for AMD versus 716.8 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32 is 47.87 TFLOPS for AMD versus 22.94 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16 is 47.87 TFLOPS at 1:1 for AMD versus 45.88 TFLOPS at 2:1 for Intel. TDP is 600 W for AMD versus 230 W for Intel. Power connectors are 2x 8-pin for AMD versus 1x 8-pin for Intel. Suggested PSU is 1000 W for AMD versus 550 W for Intel.

Display outputs are "No outputs" for AMD versus 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 for Intel. The AMD card lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan; the Intel card lists 12 Ultimate (12_2), 4.6, and 1.4 respectively. Slot width is null for AMD versus dual-slot for Intel. Height is 111 mm for AMD versus 110 mm for Intel; width is null for AMD versus 39 mm for Intel. Release dates differ: January 3, 2023 for AMD versus March 25, 2026 for Intel. The MI300 has a predecessor (Radeon Instinct), while the Arc Pro B70 has none. The Intel card has a launch MSRP of 949 USD; the AMD card has none recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from its 128 GB HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus. The Intel Arc Pro B70 has 608.0 GB/s from its 32 GB GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI300 output video to a display?

A: No. The MI300 lists "No outputs" in its display outputs field, while the Intel Arc Pro B70 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32, which is approximately 2.09 times the 22.94 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B70.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 1000 W power supply. The Arc Pro B70 has a 230 W TDP, requires 1x 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Q: Does either accelerator support ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B70 includes 32 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no recorded ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 was released on January 3, 2023. The Intel Arc Pro B70 has a release date of March 25, 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins in memory capacity with 128 GB versus 32 GB, memory bandwidth with 5.32 TB/s versus 608.0 GB/s, memory bus width with 8192 bit versus 256 bit, shading units with 14,080 versus 4,096, texture mapping units with 880 versus 256, texture rate with 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 716.8 GTexel/s, FP32 throughput with 47.87 TFLOPS versus 22.94 TFLOPS, and FP16 throughput with 47.87 TFLOPS versus 45.88 TFLOPS. It also has a larger die at 1017 mm² versus 368 mm² and more transistors at 153,000 million versus unknown for Intel.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 wins in base clock with 2280 MHz versus 1000 MHz, boost clock with 2800 MHz versus 1700 MHz, memory clock with 2375 MHz versus 1300 MHz, ROPs with 128 versus 0, pixel rate with 358.4 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s, ray tracing cores with 32 versus none, power efficiency with 230 W versus 600 W, display outputs with 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 versus none, and API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 versus N/A for all three.

The use-case split follows directly from these numbers. The MI300 suits workloads that demand enormous memory capacity and bandwidth, such as large-scale data processing, high-performance computing, and AI training on massive datasets. Its 128 GB HBM3 pool and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth are the defining advantages. The Arc Pro B70 suits professional graphics, content creation, and workstation rendering tasks that require display output, ray tracing, and standard graphics APIs. Its 32 GB GDDR6 memory and 128 ROPs provide solid rasterization capabilities, and its 230 W power draw allows deployment in systems with a 550 W power supply recommendation. The MI300's 1000 W suggested PSU and 600 W TDP restrict it to dedicated server or workstation platforms. The two products do not compete in the same segment; the data positions the MI300 as a compute accelerator and the Arc Pro B70 as a professional graphics card.