AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions both accelerators identically at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with no benchmark scores registered for either part. The AMD Instinct MI300 and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 therefore cannot be separated on measured performance from the database alone. The selection between them rests entirely on architectural and specification differences.

For workloads that require the largest memory footprint and highest memory bandwidth, the AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 128 GB of HBM3 and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 offers 96 GB of HBM2e and 2.46 TB/s. The MI300 more than doubles the memory bandwidth, which directly benefits memory-bound compute tasks.

For compute throughput, the MI300 leads in FP32 and FP16 performance at 47.87 TFLOPS each, while the Intel part delivers 44.44 TFLOPS in both precisions. The difference is 7.7% in favor of AMD, a modest margin that may not justify a platform switch.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 counters with a higher shading unit count (14,336 versus 14,080), more texture mapping units (896 versus 880), and a higher texture rate in absolute terms is actually slightly lower at 1,388.8 GTexel/s versus 1,496.0 GTexel/s for AMD. Intel also includes 112 ray tracing cores, which the MI300 lacks entirely, making the Intel part the only option of the two for ray-traced rendering workloads.

The MI300 uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 153 billion transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Intel part uses Intel's 10 nm process with 100 billion transistors on a 1280 mm² die. The MI300 achieves a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm² versus 78.1 million per mm² for Intel, indicating a substantially more compact design.

The MI300 draws 600 W and requires a 1000 W power supply, while the Intel part draws 450 W and suggests an 850 W power supply. The Intel accelerator is the lower-power option.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 uses the Generation 12.5 architecture with the Ponte Vecchio chip. These represent fundamentally different design philosophies.

The MI300 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, whereas the Intel part uses Intel's 10 nm process. The MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors onto a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The Intel part contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, yielding 78.1 million per mm². The AMD chip is denser by a factor of nearly two.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses 96 GB of HBM2e, also with an 8192-bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 2.46 TB/s. The memory clock for AMD is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) for Intel. Both use the same bus width, but the newer HBM3 standard and higher clock give AMD the bandwidth advantage.

Compute resources show similar scale. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and zero ROPs. The Intel part has 14,336 shading units, 896 TMUs, and zero ROPs. Intel includes 112 ray tracing cores; AMD lists none. Neither part has a pixel rate above 0 MPixel/s, reflecting their compute-optimized nature with no display outputs.

The MI300 has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan not specified. This makes the Intel accelerator the only one with a defined graphics API path.

Power delivery differs: the MI300 uses two 8-pin power connectors, while the Intel part lists no power connectors (it uses an OAM module slot width). The MI300 has a 600 W TDP with a suggested 1000 W PSU; the Intel part has a 450 W TDP with a suggested 850 W PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 128 GB versus 96 GB, the MI300 holds 33% more data on-device. With 5.32 TB/s versus 2.46 TB/s, it delivers 116% more memory bandwidth. Any workload that streams large datasets, such as large language model inference or scientific simulation with large stencils, will see a direct benefit from the MI300's memory subsystem.

The MI300 also wins on raw FP32 and FP16 compute. At 47.87 TFLOPS versus 44.44 TFLOPS, the AMD part is 7.7% ahead in both precisions. This advantage applies to dense linear algebra and general compute kernels.

The texture rate favors AMD as well: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 1,388.8 GTexel/s, an 7.7% lead that mirrors the FP32 difference.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins in several specific areas. It has more shading units (14,336 versus 14,080) and more TMUs (896 versus 880), though these do not translate into a texture rate advantage. The Intel part includes 112 ray tracing cores, enabling ray-traced workloads that the MI300 cannot perform at all.

The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the MI300 lists no API support. For any application that requires these graphics APIs, the Intel accelerator is the only functional choice.

The Intel part consumes 150 W less (450 W versus 600 W) and suggests a lower-capacity power supply (850 W versus 1000 W). For dense multi-accelerator deployments, the lower power draw reduces cooling and power infrastructure requirements.

The Intel part is in active production status, while the MI300's production status is not specified. The Intel part also has a listed successor (H3C Graphics), while the MI300 lists a predecessor (Radeon Instinct) but no successor.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 5.32 TB/s from 128 GB of HBM3, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 provides 2.46 TB/s from 96 GB of HBM2e. The MI300 offers more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel part includes 112 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI300 lists no ray tracing cores, so it cannot perform hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 reaches 47.87 TFLOPS in FP32, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 reaches 44.44 TFLOPS. AMD is ahead by 7.7%.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP with a suggested 1000 W power supply. The Intel part has a 450 W TDP with a suggested 850 W power supply, making it the lower-power option by 150 W.

Q: Are these accelerators identical in the database's benchmark results?

A: Both parts have an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. No benchmark scores are recorded for either, so the database cannot separate them on measured performance.

Q: Which accelerator uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 uses a 5 nm TSMC process. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 uses Intel's 10 nm process. The MI300's process node is smaller.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results for these two accelerators. Both have an average benchmark score of 0, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. With zero wins recorded for either side (winsA: 0, winsB: 0), the measured performance comparison is entirely empty.

This absence of data means all comparisons must come from the specification sheet. The most significant gap appears in memory bandwidth. The MI300's 5.32 TB/s versus the Intel part's 2.46 TB/s represents a 116% advantage for AMD. For memory-bound kernels, this difference dwarfs the compute gap.

The compute difference is smaller but consistent. The MI300 leads FP32 by 3.43 TFLOPS (47.87 versus 44.44) and FP16 by the same margin (47.87 versus 44.44). The texture rate follows the same pattern: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 1,388.8 GTexel/s, a 107.2 GTexel/s difference.

The Intel part wins on architectural features rather than raw throughput. Its 112 ray tracing cores create a capability that AMD cannot match. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support give it a defined software path for graphics APIs, while the MI300 lists no API support. The Intel part's active production status and listed successor (H3C Graphics) suggest an ongoing product line, while the MI300's production status remains unspecified.

The transistor counts show the scale of both designs: 153,000 million for AMD versus 100,000 million for Intel. The MI300 achieves this higher count on a smaller die (1017 mm² versus 1280 mm²), resulting in 150.4 million transistors per mm² versus 78.1 million per mm². The density difference reflects the process node advantage.

Clock speeds favor AMD in every category. The MI300 has a 1000 MHz base clock versus 750 MHz for Intel, and a 1700 MHz boost clock versus 1550 MHz. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective). All of these contribute to the bandwidth and compute advantages.

The Intel part has a higher shading unit count (14,336 versus 14,080) and higher TMU count (896 versus 880), but the AMD part still produces higher texture throughput. This indicates that the AMD architecture extracts more work per unit, likely due to its higher clock speeds.

Both parts use PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces and have no display outputs. Both have zero ROPs and zero pixel rates, confirming their compute-only positioning.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every specification category.

Process and Packaging: The MI300 uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Intel part uses a 10 nm Intel process with 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for AMD versus 78.1M per mm² for Intel.

Clock Speeds: The MI300 has a 1000 MHz base clock and 1700 MHz boost clock. The Intel part has a 750 MHz base clock and 1550 MHz boost clock. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) for Intel.

Memory: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has 96 GB of HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 2.46 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute Units: The MI300 has 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs. The Intel part has 14,336 shading units and 896 TMUs. Both have zero ROPs. The Intel part has 112 ray tracing cores; the MI300 has none.

Throughput: The MI300 delivers 1,496.0 GTexel/s texture rate, 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, and 47.87 TFLOPS FP16. The Intel part delivers 1,388.8 GTexel/s texture rate, 44.44 TFLOPS FP32, and 44.44 TFLOPS FP16. Both have 0 MPixel/s pixel rate.

Power: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 1000 W PSU. The Intel part has a 450 W TDP, no listed power connectors, an OAM Module slot width, and a suggested 850 W PSU.

API Support: The MI300 lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan not specified.

Physical and Interface: The MI300 measures 267 mm by 111 mm. The Intel part has no listed dimensions. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 and have no display outputs.

Product Status: The Intel part is in active production with a successor (H3C Graphics). The MI300 has no specified production status and no successor, but lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. The MI300 released on 2023-01-03, while the Intel part released on 2023-01-09, six days later.