AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300 and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 target distinctly different segments of the accelerator market, and the recorded data makes the separation clear. The MI300 delivers substantially higher raw compute and memory resources, making it the choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput and large memory capacities. The Max 1100 offers a far more power-efficient package with a lower thermal envelope and a smaller physical footprint, making it suitable for environments where power and space constraints are critical. The MI300 leads in every major compute and memory specification, while the Max 1100 counters with a lower power draw, a dual-slot form factor, and a fully featured API stack. The data shows no benchmark scores for either part, so the analysis relies entirely on architectural and specification comparisons.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins in compute density and memory capacity. Its 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 throughput place it in a different performance class than the Intel part. The MI300 also carries 128 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, which is more than four times the bandwidth of the Max 1100. This makes the MI300 the preferable option for large-scale AI training, scientific simulations, and any workload that requires massive datasets to reside in high-bandwidth memory.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins in power efficiency and system integration. Its 300 W TDP is half that of the MI300, and its suggested power supply of 700 W versus 1000 W means it can be deployed in more modest server configurations. The Max 1100 also includes 56 ray tracing cores, which the MI300 lacks entirely. While neither part has display outputs, the Max 1100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, whereas the MI300 reports N/A for all three major graphics APIs. For workloads that need ray tracing acceleration or standard graphics API compatibility, the Intel part is the only option between the two.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses the Generation 12.5 architecture, built on an Intel 10 nm process. Its Ponte Vecchio chip contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, with a transistor density of 78.1 million per square millimeter. The MI300 achieves 1.53 times the transistor count on a smaller die, reflecting the density advantage of the 5 nm process.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Max 1100 uses 48 GB of HBM2e with the same 8192-bit bus width but only 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the MI300 boosts to 1700 MHz, while the Max 1100 boosts to 1550 MHz. Effective memory speed is 5.2 Gbps on the MI300 versus 1200 Mbps on the Max 1100, a substantial gap that explains the bandwidth difference.

The Intel part includes 56 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part has no ray tracing hardware. Both parts report zero pixel rate, as neither has ROPs producing output. The MI300 has no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the Max 1100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan left unspecified.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 provides 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from 128 GB of HBM3 memory. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 provides 1.23 TB/s from 48 GB of HBM2e memory. The MI300 offers over four times the bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP and requires a 1000 W suggested power supply. The Max 1100 has a 300 W TDP and requires a 700 W suggested power supply. The Intel part draws half the power.

Q: Do these cards support standard graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Max 1100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD MI300 reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no standard graphics API support.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing capability?

A: Only the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 includes ray tracing cores, with 56 of them. The AMD MI300 has no RT cores listed.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: Both cards share the same length of 267 mm (10.5 inches). The MI300 has a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the Max 1100 does not have a listed height but is specified as a dual-slot card.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD MI300 boosts to 1700 MHz, while the Intel Max 1100 boosts to 1550 MHz. Both have the same 1000 MHz base clock.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No benchmark scores are recorded for either GPU in the database, so direct performance comparisons rely on architectural specifications. The most significant gap appears in FP32 throughput. The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS, which is 2.15 times the 22.22 TFLOPS of the Max 1100. The same ratio applies to FP16 performance, as both parts list 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratios, giving the MI300 47.87 TFLOPS FP16 versus 22.22 TFLOPS for the Intel part.

Texture rate follows a similar pattern. The MI300 achieves 1,496.0 GTexel/s, while the Max 1100 reaches 694.4 GTexel/s. This 2.15 times advantage stems from the MI300 having 880 TMUs versus 448 on the Intel part, combined with the higher boost clock.

Memory bandwidth presents the largest relative difference. The MI300's 5.32 TB/s is 4.33 times the Max 1100's 1.23 TB/s. The bandwidth advantage comes from both the higher effective memory speed (5.2 Gbps versus 1200 Mbps) and the larger memory pool (128 GB versus 48 GB), while both use an 8192-bit bus.

The transistor count favors AMD. The MI300 contains 153,000 million transistors versus 100,000 million on the Max 1100, a 1.53 times advantage. However, the Intel die is larger at 1280 mm² versus 1017 mm², and the transistor density reflects this: 150.4M per mm² for AMD versus 78.1M per mm² for Intel, a 1.93 times density advantage for the 5 nm process.

The power envelope tells the opposite story. The Max 1100's 300 W TDP is exactly half the MI300's 600 W. The suggested power supply also scales accordingly: 700 W for Intel versus 1000 W for AMD. The Intel part uses a single 12-pin power connector, while the AMD part requires two 8-pin connectors.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators diverge across nearly every specification category. The process node differs: AMD uses 5 nm at TSMC, while Intel uses 10 nm at its own foundry. Transistor count is 153,000 million for AMD versus 100,000 million for Intel. Die size is 1017 mm² for AMD versus 1280 mm² for Intel, and transistor density is 150.4M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm².

Clock speeds show a 150 MHz boost advantage for AMD (1700 MHz versus 1550 MHz) with identical 1000 MHz base clocks. Memory speed differs sharply: 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective for AMD versus 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective for Intel. Memory capacity is 128 GB HBM3 versus 48 GB HBM2e, with bandwidth at 5.32 TB/s versus 1.23 TB/s. Both use 8192-bit buses.

Compute resources favor AMD with 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs versus 7,168 shading units and 448 TMUs for Intel. The Intel part includes 56 RT cores, which AMD lacks. Both have zero ROPs and zero pixel rate. FP32 and FP16 performance are both 47.87 TFLOPS for AMD and 22.22 TFLOPS for Intel, with 1:1 ratios on both.

Power and cooling requirements differ substantially. AMD lists 600 W TDP with 2x 8-pin connectors and a 1000 W suggested PSU. Intel lists 300 W TDP with 1x 12-pin connector and a 700 W suggested PSU. The Intel card is dual-slot, while the AMD card has no slot width listed. Both share 267 mm length, with AMD adding a 111 mm height specification.

API support distinguishes the two: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while AMD reports N/A for all APIs. Neither card has display outputs. The AMD part's production status is not listed, while Intel's is active. Release dates are close, with AMD on January 3, 2023, and Intel on January 9, 2023. Intel lists a successor, the H3C Graphics, while AMD lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct.