AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 Comparison

The Verdict

The data places the AMD Instinct MI300 and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 in the same performance percentile bracket, both at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores or head-to-head wins in the database, so the analysis must rely on architectural specifications and feature sets. The MI300 is built for raw memory bandwidth and density, while the Intel Max 1550 counters with higher shading unit counts and texture throughput. For workloads where memory bandwidth dominates, the MI300 has the clear specification advantage. For compute tasks that scale with shader count and texture operations, the Intel part presents a stronger profile. The data does not indicate a universal winner, but rather two accelerators optimized for different execution patterns.

Architecture Differences

The MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, packing 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die. The Intel Max 1550 uses Generation 12.5 architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, with 100,000 million transistors spread across a larger 1280 mm² die. Transistor density tells a clear story: the MI300 achieves 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Intel part reaches 78.1 million per square millimeter. The MI300's smaller, denser process node gives it a manufacturing advantage, but the Intel chip's larger physical footprint allows for different resource allocation.

Both accelerators have 128 GB of memory, but the memory types diverge significantly. The MI300 uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and delivers 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Max 1550 uses HBM2e, also with an 8192-bit bus, but its bandwidth is 3.28 TB/s. That is a 2.04 TB/s difference in favor of the MI300, a substantial gap for memory-bound workloads. The memory clocks reflect this: the MI300 runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed, while the Intel part runs at 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective speed. Higher clock speed on the Intel memory does not compensate for the older HBM2e technology.

The compute resources tell a different story. The Intel Max 1550 has 16,384 shading units, 1024 texture mapping units, and 128 ray tracing cores. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units and 880 texture mapping units, with no ray tracing cores listed. The Intel part has 2,304 more shading units and 144 more TMUs. Texture rate reflects this: the Intel part delivers 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 1,496.0 GTexel/s for the MI300. Both have zero pixel rate and zero ROPs, confirming these are compute accelerators without traditional rasterization pipelines.

Clock speeds favor the MI300. Its base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 1700 MHz. The Intel part runs at 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. The MI300's boost clock is 100 MHz higher, which partially offsets the Intel part's shader count advantage. Floating point performance reflects the combination of clock and shader resources: the Intel Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, while the MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS in both formats. The Intel part leads by 4.56 TFLOPS, or roughly 9.5% ahead.

Power consumption is identical at 600 W TDP for both parts, and both suggest a 1000 W power supply. The MI300 uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the Intel part specifies an OAM module slot width with no power connector details. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces. Neither has display outputs, as expected for data center accelerators.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300 wins on memory bandwidth by a wide margin. Its 5.32 TB/s versus 3.28 TB/s represents a 62.2% advantage. For large language model inference, scientific simulation with massive datasets, or any workload where data movement is the bottleneck, the MI300's HBM3 stack provides a decisive edge. The higher transistor density also suggests better power efficiency per unit of compute, though the database does not record efficiency metrics.

The Intel Max 1550 wins on raw compute throughput. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance exceeds the MI300's 47.87 TFLOPS. The higher shading unit count (16,384 versus 14,080) and texture unit count (1,024 versus 880) make it better suited for workloads that parallelize across many simple execution units. The presence of 128 ray tracing cores, absent from the MI300, opens possibilities for ray-traced rendering workloads, though data center GPUs rarely prioritize that. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the MI300 lists no API support at all, suggesting the Intel part has broader software compatibility for graphics-adjacent compute.

The release dates sit six days apart: the MI300 on January 3, 2023, and the Intel Max 1550 on January 9, 2023. The Intel part is listed as Active in production status, while the MI300 has no production status recorded. The Intel part lists a successor (H3C Graphics), while the MI300 does not. The MI300's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the Intel part has no predecessor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 5.32 TB/s from its HBM3 memory, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 provides 3.28 TB/s from HBM2e. The MI300 leads by 2.04 TB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has 16,384 shading units. The AMD Instinct MI300 has 14,080. The Intel part has 2,304 more shading units.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two?

A: The MI300 has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Intel Max 1550 has 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. The MI300 has 53,000 million more transistors in a smaller area.

Q: Do both cards support the same PCIe interface?

A: Yes, both use PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces. Neither has display outputs.

Q: Which accelerator has ray tracing capability?

A: Only the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 lists ray tracing cores, with 128 of them. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no ray tracing cores recorded.

Q: What is the power consumption of each?

A: Both are rated at 600 W TDP and suggest a 1000 W power supply. The MI300 uses 2x 8-pin connectors, while the Intel part uses an OAM module form factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no benchmark scores for either accelerator. The avgBenchmarkScore for both is 0, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. Neither part has wins recorded, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. This absence of measured data means the specification sheet must carry the analysis.

The largest specification advantage belongs to the MI300 in memory bandwidth. At 5.32 TB/s versus 3.28 TB/s, the MI300 moves data 62.2% faster. That gap is substantial enough to dominate any memory-bound workload, including sparse matrix operations, graph analytics, and large batch inference. The MI300 also holds the transistor density advantage at 150.4 million per square millimeter versus 78.1 million, a 92.6% higher density on a 5 nm process versus 10 nm.

The Intel part's largest advantage is in floating point throughput. Its 52.43 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 exceeds the MI300's 47.87 TFLOPS by 4.56 TFLOPS. The texture rate advantage is 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 1,496.0 GTexel/s, a 142.4 GTexel/s gap. The Intel part also has 128 ray tracing cores where the MI300 has none.

Clock speeds modestly favor the MI300. The base clock of 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz and boost of 1700 MHz versus 1600 MHz mean the MI300 executes its fewer shading units at a faster rate. The MI300's boost clock is 6.25% higher than the Intel part's, which narrows the compute throughput gap but does not close it.

Memory size is equal at 128 GB, and bus width is equal at 8192 bits. The memory type difference (HBM3 versus HBM2e) is the primary driver of the bandwidth gap. The MI300's memory runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed; the Intel part's runs at 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective speed. The higher effective data rate on the MI300's HBM3 compensates for the lower clock speed.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ in every major specification category except memory size, bus width, TDP, suggested PSU, and bus interface.

The process node differs: 5 nm for the MI300 versus 10 nm for the Intel Max 1550. The foundry also differs: TSMC for the MI300 versus Intel for the Intel part. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 100,000 million. Die sizes are 1017 mm² versus 1280 mm². Transistor density is 150.4 million per square millimeter versus 78.1 million.

Memory type differs: HBM3 versus HBM2e. Memory bandwidth differs: 5.32 TB/s versus 3.28 TB/s. Memory clock differs: 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective versus 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective.

Shading units differ: 14,080 versus 16,384. Texture mapping units differ: 880 versus 1,024. Ray tracing cores differ: none versus 128. Texture rate differs: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 1,638.4 GTexel/s. Floating point performance differs: 47.87 TFLOPS versus 52.43 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16.

Base clocks differ: 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz. Boost clocks differ: 1700 MHz versus 1600 MHz. Power connectors differ: 2x 8-pin versus none listed. Slot width differs: none listed versus OAM Module. API support differs: none for the MI300 versus DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 for the Intel part. Dimensions differ: the MI300 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, while the Intel part lists no dimensions.

Production status differs: none listed for the MI300 versus Active for the Intel part. Release dates differ by six days. The MI300 lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor; the Intel part lists H3C Graphics as its successor. The Intel part carries no predecessor, and the MI300 carries no successor. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.