AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI300 versus the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem. Both cards return an average benchmark score of 0 and sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. That parity in the aggregate metrics is unusual for two accelerators with such different internal designs, and it suggests the available dataset has not yet captured meaningful workload results for either part.

Without measured scores to separate them, the specification sheets become the only quantitative comparison. In raw FP32 throughput, the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem reaches 52.43 TFLOPS, which is 4.56 TFLOPS higher than the AMD Instinct MI300's 47.87 TFLOPS. That translates to roughly 9.5% more FP32 compute on the Intel side. The FP16 figures repeat the same pattern: 52.43 TFLOPS for Intel versus 47.87 TFLOPS for AMD, both at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 numbers.

Texture rate follows a similar direction. Intel's part delivers 1,638.4 GTexel/s, while AMD's Instinct MI300 produces 1,496.0 GTexel/s. The difference here is 142.4 GTexel/s, or about 9.5% in Intel's favor. The shading unit count supports that result: Intel lists 16,384 shading units against AMD's 14,080, a gap of 2,304 units. TMU counts also favor Intel, 1,024 versus 880.

Memory capacity is identical at 128 GB on both cards, and the bus width matches at 8192 bit. The memory technology differs, and that changes the bandwidth story. AMD uses HBM3 with a 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses HBM2e with 3.21 TB/s. AMD holds a 2.11 TB/s advantage, roughly 66% more memory bandwidth. The memory clock difference is stark: AMD runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while Intel's memory clock is 1565 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). Despite the higher raw memory clock on Intel, the effective data rate is much lower because of the older HBM2e interface.

Clock speeds on the compute side favor AMD. The Instinct MI300 has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 1700 MHz boost clock. Intel's Data Center GPU Max Subsystem runs at 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. AMD leads by 100 MHz at both base and boost.

Pixel rate is zero on both cards, and ROP counts are zero on both, which is consistent with compute-focused accelerators that have no display or rasterization pipeline. The API support differs: Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while AMD lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem wins on raw compute density in the FP32 and FP16 domains, with 52.43 TFLOPS versus 47.87 TFLOPS. It also has more shading units (16,384 versus 14,080), more TMUs (1,024 versus 880), and a higher texture rate (1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 1,496.0 GTexel/s). The Intel card also includes 128 ray tracing cores, a feature AMD's MI300 does not list at all in the database. That RT core count is notable for a data center product, hinting at possible rendering or ray-tracing workloads that the AMD part does not appear to target.

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins on memory bandwidth by a wide margin. Its 5.32 TB/s HBM3 implementation is 2.11 TB/s faster than Intel's 3.21 TB/s HBM2e. That bandwidth advantage matters for memory-bound workloads such as large matrix operations or data movement across the 128 GB pool. AMD also runs higher compute clocks: 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost versus Intel's 900 MHz and 1600 MHz.

The transistor story is interesting. AMD packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die using a 5 nm TSMC process, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per mm². Intel's Ponte Vecchio uses 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die at 10 nm, for a density of 78.1 million transistors per mm². AMD achieves nearly double the transistor density on a smaller die. That density gap explains how AMD delivers competitive compute and superior bandwidth despite a lower shading unit count.

Power consumption heavily favors AMD on paper. The Instinct MI300 is rated at 600 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1000 W, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem draws 2400 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 2800 W. Intel's card requires a single 16-pin power connector, while AMD uses two 8-pin connectors. The Intel subsystem is also marked as dual-slot, while AMD's slot width is not recorded.

Architecture Differences

AMD's Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Aqua Vanjaram. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 1017 mm² and integrates 153,000 million transistors. This is a compute-oriented design with no display outputs and no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The card uses HBM3 memory with a 8192 bit bus and a 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. It has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and zero ROPs. The pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, confirming there is no rasterization hardware active. The FP32 and FP16 rates are identical at 47.87 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio with no dedicated FP16 acceleration. The card uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. Its dimensions match Intel's card in length at 267 mm (10.5 inches), and its height is 111 mm (4.4 inches). It was released on January 3, 2023, and its predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct.

Intel's Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses the Generation 12.5 architecture on the Ponte Vecchio chip. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die is larger at 1280 mm², but the transistor count is lower at 100,000 million, giving a density of 78.1 million transistors per mm². The card uses HBM2e memory with an 8192 bit bus and 3.21 TB/s bandwidth. It has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 128 ray tracing cores. The FP32 and FP16 rates are identical at 52.43 TFLOPS. The card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan is not listed. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and has a dual-slot form factor. Its length is also 267 mm (10.5 inches), but no height is recorded. It was released on January 9, 2023, and its successor is listed as H3C Graphics. The production status is marked as Active, while AMD's production status is not recorded.

The memory subsystem differences are the most consequential architectural split. AMD chooses newer HBM3 with a much higher effective data rate (5.2 Gbps versus 3.1 Gbps), while Intel sticks with HBM2e but runs the memory clock higher at 1565 MHz versus AMD's 1300 MHz. The effective bandwidth gap is enormous: 5.32 TB/s versus 3.21 TB/s.

The ray tracing cores on Intel's part are another distinguishing feature. AMD lists no RT cores at all. For a data center accelerator, this could indicate Intel's design includes some graphics or rendering capability, especially given the DirectX 12 and OpenGL API support. AMD's card has no display outputs and no API support, making it a pure compute accelerator.

The Verdict

The data points in different directions for different workloads. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem delivers higher raw FP32 and FP16 throughput (52.43 TFLOPS versus 47.87 TFLOPS), more shading units, more TMUs, and the only ray tracing cores in this comparison. It also supports DirectX 12 and OpenGL, which AMD's card does not. For compute workloads that scale with shading units and texture rate, Intel holds the numerical edge.

The AMD Instinct MI300 counters with a massive memory bandwidth advantage: 5.32 TB/s versus 3.21 TB/s. That is a 66% bandwidth lead, and it comes from HBM3 memory on a 8192 bit bus. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, the AMD card has a clear structural advantage. AMD also runs higher clocks (1000 MHz base, 1700 MHz boost) and uses far less power: 600 W TDP versus 2400 W TDP.

The process technology difference is also notable. AMD builds on TSMC 5 nm with a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm², while Intel uses its 10 nm process with 78.1 million per mm². AMD achieves more than double the density, which helps explain how it delivers competitive compute with fewer shading units and a 4x lower TDP.

Neither card has any recorded benchmark scores in the database, so the verdict is based entirely on specifications. On paper, Intel wins on peak compute and feature set. AMD wins on memory bandwidth, power efficiency, and transistor density. The choice depends on which bottleneck matters more for the target workload: compute throughput or memory bandwidth.

The Intel card's 2400 W TDP and 2800 W suggested PSU are extreme requirements. The AMD card's 600 W TDP and 1000 W PSU are far more modest. For dense installations where power and cooling are constrained, the AMD card is the more practical option. For maximum raw FP32 throughput in a single subsystem, the Intel card offers 4.56 TFLOPS more.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem delivers 52.43 TFLOPS, which is 4.56 TFLOPS higher than the AMD Instinct MI300's 47.87 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has 5.32 TB/s from 128 GB of HBM3 on a 8192 bit bus. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has 3.21 TB/s from 128 GB of HBM2e on the same 8192 bit bus width.

Q: Do these cards support graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD Instinct MI300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two cards?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 is rated at 600 W with a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is rated at 2400 W with a suggested PSU of 2800 W.

Q: Which card has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has 128 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI300 does not list any RT cores in the database.

Q: What process nodes are used for each card?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is built on a 10 nm process at Intel.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300 | Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Generation 12.5 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 100,000 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 1280 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 78.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 1600 MHz |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | HBM2e |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective | 1565 MHz, 3.1 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 3.21 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 14,080 | 16,384 |

| TMUs | 880 | 1,024 |

| RT Cores | None listed | 128 |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 1,638.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.87 TFLOPS | 52.43 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 2400 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 2800 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | Dual-slot |

| DirectX Support | N/A | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | Not listed |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not recorded |

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

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | None listed |

| Successor | None listed | H3C Graphics |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | No outputs |

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

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 8192 bit |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 0 MPixel/s |

| ROPs | 0 | 0 |