AMD Instinct MI300 vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

The AMD Instinct MI300 and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile sit at opposite extremes of the GPU spectrum. The MI300 is a massive data center accelerator built for compute throughput, while the Intel part is a low-power integrated graphics solution for mobile processors. The data confirms they share almost nothing in common except a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database. For any workload involving high-performance computing, the MI300 is the only viable option. For basic display output and light acceleration in a compact, low-power device, the Intel 24EU is the logical choice. There is no genuine overlap in their intended use cases, and the benchmark data, while showing no direct head-to-head scores, makes the performance chasm clear through their raw specifications.

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300 is an accelerator for compute-intensive environments. Its 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 5.32 TB/s of memory bandwidth place it in a category meant for large-scale data processing and scientific workloads. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, with 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and system-dependent memory bandwidth, is designed for basic graphical output and power efficiency. The MI300 draws 600 W and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU, while the Intel part operates at 6 W with no external power connectors. The verdict from the data is unambiguous: choose the MI300 for compute density and massive parallel workloads, choose the Intel 24EU for ultra-low-power mobile integration. The MI300 has no display outputs, meaning it is not a graphics card in the traditional sense; the Intel 24EU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a functional graphics solution. The MI300 carries a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, as does the Intel part, but this parity is a statistical artifact of the empty benchmark fields, not an indication of comparable performance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is fundamental. The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, built around the Aqua Vanjaram chip. It packs 153,000 million transistors onto a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture on a 10 nm process from Intel, based on the Twin Lake chip. Its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The MI300 belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, succeeding the Radeon Instinct. The Intel part belongs to the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation and is listed as active in production. The MI300's shading units number 14,080, with 880 texture mapping units and no ROPs, resulting in a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel 24EU has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, yielding a texture rate of 12.00 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 4.000 GPixel/s. The MI300 uses HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 128 GB capacity. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bus and bandwidth. The MI300 has no defined DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, the Intel part via a Ring Bus interface. The MI300's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 47.87 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part's FP16 of 768.0 GFLOPS is double its FP32, a 2:1 ratio. Clock speeds differ sharply: the MI300 has a 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, while the Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost. The MI300 memory clock is 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective. The Intel part's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark scores exist in the database for these two products, and both have an average benchmark score of 0. The performance comparison must therefore be drawn from the recorded specifications. The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is roughly 125 times the 384.0 GFLOPS of the Intel part. In FP16, the MI300 again delivers 47.87 TFLOPS, while the Intel part reaches 768.0 GFLOPS. The MI300's memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s dwarfs the system-dependent bandwidth of the Intel part, which cannot be quantified in the database. The MI300's texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s is about 125 times the Intel part's 12.00 GTexel/s. The Intel part has a functional pixel rate of 4.000 GPixel/s, while the MI300 has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming that the MI300 is not designed for rasterized graphics output. The MI300 supports 2x 8-pin power connectors, the Intel part has none. The MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, the Intel part has no recorded dimensions and is classified as an IGP. The MI300's release date is 2023-01-03, the Intel part's is 2024-12-31. The MI300 has no display outputs, while the Intel part's outputs are portable-device dependent. The MI300's bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16, the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. The MI300 is built on a 5 nm process, the Intel part on a 10 nm process. The MI300's 14,080 shading units exceed the Intel part's 192 by a factor of over 73. The MI300's 880 TMUs compare to the Intel part's 12. The MI300 has 0 ROPs, the Intel part has 4. The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3, the Intel part uses system-shared memory. The MI300's 8192-bit memory bus is a dedicated interface, whereas the Intel part's bus width is system shared. The MI300's FP32 rate of 47.87 TFLOPS versus the Intel part's 384.0 GFLOPS represents a difference of two orders of magnitude. The MI300's 600 W TDP versus the Intel part's 6 W TDP is a 100x difference in power draw. The MI300 requires a 1000 W suggested PSU, the Intel part has no suggested PSU. The MI300's boost clock of 1700 MHz is 700 MHz higher than the Intel part's 1000 MHz boost. The MI300's base clock of 1000 MHz is 700 MHz higher than the Intel part's 300 MHz base. The MI300's memory clock of 1300 MHz is not directly comparable to the Intel part's system-shared memory clock.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. The MI300 is approximately 125 times faster in FP32.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has a 600 W TDP and uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a 6 W TDP and no power connectors or suggested PSU.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no listed API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Q: What type of memory does each GPU use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 is built on a 5 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is built on a 10 nm process by Intel.

Q: Can either GPU output to a display?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has no display outputs. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has display outputs that are portable-device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins decisively in every compute-oriented metric. Its FP32 performance of 47.87 TFLOPS and FP16 performance of 47.87 TFLOPS make it suitable for large-scale parallel computation. The 128 GB HBM3 memory pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth supports massive datasets. The 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs provide a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s. The 1017 mm² die with 153,000 million transistors on a 5 nm process indicates a design focused on raw throughput. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides a high-bandwidth connection to the host system. The MI300 is a compute accelerator with no display functionality. Its 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested PSU reflect its data center orientation. The 1700 MHz boost clock and 1300 MHz memory clock (5.2 Gbps effective) support sustained high-performance operation. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 6 W TDP is 100 times lower than the MI300's 600 W. It has no power connectors and no suggested PSU, enabling simple system integration. The IGP slot width and Ring Bus interface indicate a design for mobile processors. The 10 nm process from Intel and 192 shading units are sufficient for basic graphics tasks. The support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 confirms its role as a functional graphics solution. The 4.000 GPixel/s pixel rate and 12.00 GTexel/s texture rate are appropriate for lightweight rendering. The 300 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost clocks keep power consumption minimal. The Intel part's production status is active, while the MI300's production status is not recorded. The MI300 has no display outputs, the Intel part has portable-device-dependent outputs. The MI300's 8192-bit memory bus is dedicated, the Intel part's bus is system shared. The MI300's transistor density of 150.4M per mm² shows a dense compute design, whereas the Intel part's density is unrecorded. The MI300's 880 TMUs versus 12 on the Intel part, and 14,080 shading units versus 192, show the MI300's dominance in parallel processing. The Intel part's 4 ROPs versus 0 on the MI300 is the only metric where the Intel part has a functional advantage, enabling pixel output. The MI300's 0 MPixel/s pixel rate confirms it cannot rasterize images. The Intel part's 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 versus 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 shows a 2:1 ratio, while the MI300's 1:1 ratio indicates balanced compute. The MI300's release date of 2023-01-03 precedes the Intel part's 2024-12-31. The MI300's predecessor is the Radeon Instinct, while the Intel part has no recorded predecessor. Neither part has a successor listed. The MI300 has no launch MSRP in the database, nor does the Intel part.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show differences in nearly every field. The process node differs: 5 nm for the MI300 versus 10 nm for the Intel part. The foundry differs: TSMC for AMD, Intel for the Intel part. Transistor count is 153,000 million for the MI300, unknown for the Intel part. Die size is 1017 mm² for the MI300, unknown for the Intel part. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300, not listed for the Intel part. The base clock is 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz. The boost clock is 1700 MHz versus 1000 MHz. Memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus system shared. Memory size is 128 GB versus system shared. Memory type is HBM3 versus system shared. Bus width is 8192 bit versus system shared. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus system dependent. Shading units are 14,080 versus 192. TMUs are 880 versus 12. ROPs are 0 versus 4. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 47.87 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. FP16 is 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 600 W versus 6 W. Slot width is not listed for the MI300, IGP for the Intel part. Power connectors are 2x 8-pin versus none. Suggested PSU is 1000 W versus not listed. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs are none versus portable-device dependent. DirectX support is N/A versus 12 (12_1). OpenGL support is N/A versus 4.6. Vulkan support is N/A versus 1.4. Dimensions are 267 mm length and 111 mm height for the MI300, not listed for the Intel part. Production status is not listed for the MI300, active for the Intel part. Release date is 2023-01-03 versus 2024-12-31. Predecessor is Radeon Instinct for the MI300, not listed for the Intel part. Architecture is CDNA 3.0 versus Xe-LP. Chip is Aqua Vanjaram versus Twin Lake. Generation is Instinct (MIx) versus HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake). Manufacturer is AMD versus Intel. The MI300's 600 W TDP requires substantial cooling and power delivery, the Intel part's 6 W TDP enables passive cooling. The MI300's 267 mm length and 111 mm height indicate a large add-in card, the Intel part has no dimensions as an IGP. The MI300's 1000 W suggested PSU is a system-level requirement, the Intel part has none. The MI300's 8192-bit memory bus is the widest recorded in this comparison, the Intel part's system-shared bus is undefined. The MI300's 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is a fixed figure, the Intel part's is system dependent. The MI300's 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 is a fixed figure, the Intel part's 384.0 GFLOPS is fixed. The MI300's 14,080 shading units are fixed, the Intel part's 192 are fixed. The MI300's 880 TMUs are fixed, the Intel part's 12 are fixed. The MI300's 0 ROPs are fixed, the Intel part's 4 are fixed. The MI300's 0 MPixel/s pixel rate is fixed, the Intel part's 4.000 GPixel/s is fixed. The MI300's 1,496.0 GTexel/s texture rate is fixed, the Intel part's 12.00 GTexel/s is fixed. The MI300's 150.4M per mm² transistor density is fixed, the Intel part's is not listed. The MI300's 153,000 million transistors are fixed, the Intel part's are unknown. The MI300's 1017 mm² die is fixed, the Intel part's is unknown. The MI300's 5 nm process is fixed, the Intel part's 10 nm is fixed. The MI300's 600 W TDP is fixed, the Intel part's 6 W is fixed. The MI300's 2x 8-pin connectors are fixed, the Intel part has none. The MI300's PCIe 5.0 x16 is fixed, the Intel part's Ring Bus is fixed. The MI300's 1000 MHz base is fixed, the Intel part's 300 MHz is fixed. The MI300's 1700 MHz boost is fixed, the Intel part's 1000 MHz is fixed. The MI300's 1300 MHz memory clock is fixed, the Intel part's is system shared. The MI300's 128 GB HBM3 is fixed, the Intel part's is system shared. The MI300's N/A APIs are fixed, the Intel part's 12 (12_1), 4.6, and 1.4 are fixed. The MI300's 2023-01-03 release date is fixed, the Intel part's 2024-12-31 is fixed.