AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc 140V Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300A and Intel Arc 140V Mobile occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The MI300A is a data-center accelerator built for massive compute throughput, while the Arc 140V is an integrated graphics processor for thin-and-light laptops. The data shows the MI300A is the clear choice for high-performance computing workloads, offering 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the Arc 140V's 3.994 TFLOPS. The Arc 140V, with its 37 W TDP and integrated design, suits mobile systems where power efficiency and portability matter. Neither part targets the same user, so the selection depends entirely on the deployment context: rack-mounted servers for the MI300A, portable devices for the Arc 140V.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Arc 140V employs the Xe2-LPG architecture on a 3 nm TSMC node. The MI300A's chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, packs 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc 140V's Lunar Lake chip measures 172 mm² with an unspecified transistor count. The MI300A features 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, whereas the Arc 140V has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI300A also includes 8 ray tracing cores on the Arc 140V, a feature absent from the MI300A.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc 140V relies on system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth. The MI300A's memory clock runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the Arc 140V's memory clock is listed as system shared. The MI300A has no display outputs, reflecting its compute-only role, whereas the Arc 140V's outputs are portable-device dependent. The MI300A supports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan APIs, while the Arc 140V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The MI300A is an OAM module with a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface and no power connectors, requiring a suggested 1150 W PSU. The Arc 140V is an IGP with an integrated bus interface and no separate power connector. The MI300A's TDP is 750 W, far exceeding the Arc 140V's 37 W. The MI300A launched on December 5, 2023, while the Arc 140V launched on September 23, 2024. The MI300A succeeds the Radeon Instinct, and the Arc 140V succeeds the HD Graphics-M.

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is approximately 15 times higher than the Arc 140V's 3.994 TFLOPS.

Q: How do memory capacities compare?

A: The MI300A has a fixed 128 GB of HBM3 memory, while the Arc 140V uses system-shared memory with no dedicated capacity.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc 140V includes 8 ray tracing cores, while the AMD MI300A has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300A has a 750 W TDP and requires a suggested 1150 W PSU, whereas the Arc 140V has a 37 W TDP and no separate PSU recommendation.

Q: When did each GPU launch?

A: The MI300A launched on December 5, 2023; the Arc 140V launched on September 23, 2024.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The MI300A uses TSMC's 5 nm process, while the Arc 140V uses TSMC's 3 nm process.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, whereas the Arc 140V uses Xe2-LPG. The process nodes are 5 nm for the MI300A and 3 nm for the Arc 140V. Transistor counts are 153,000 million for the MI300A; the Arc 140V's is unknown. Die sizes are 1017 mm² versus 172 mm². Base clocks are 1000 MHz for the MI300A and 300 MHz for the Arc 140V, with boost clocks of 2100 MHz and 1950 MHz, respectively. The MI300A's memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the Arc 140V's is system shared. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ: 128 GB HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus at 5.32 TB/s versus system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Shading units number 14,592 for the MI300A versus 1,024 for the Arc 140V. TMUs are 912 versus 64. ROPs are 0 for the MI300A and 32 for the Arc 140V. The Arc 140V has 8 ray tracing cores; the MI300A has none. Pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s for the MI300A and 62.40 GPixel/s for the Arc 140V. Texture rates are 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS. The Arc 140V lists FP16 at 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1), while the MI300A has no FP16 figure.

TDP values are 750 W versus 37 W. Slot widths are OAM Module versus IGP. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the Arc 140V uses IGP. Display outputs are absent on the MI300A but portable-device dependent on the Arc 140V. API support is N/A for the MI300A, while the Arc 140V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Production status is unspecified for the MI300A and Active for the Arc 140V. Release dates are December 5, 2023, and September 23, 2024. The MI300A's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the Arc 140V's is HD Graphics-M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains no head-to-head results, wins, or nearest rivals for either GPU. The MI300A and Arc 140V both hold a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of 0. Without direct comparative benchmarks, the specification data provides the only measurable basis for comparison.

The MI300A's FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS is the dominant compute metric. This is roughly 15.3 times the Arc 140V's 3.994 TFLOPS. Texture rate shows a similar gap: the MI300A processes 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s, a 15.3-fold advantage. Memory bandwidth is even more lopsided, with 5.32 TB/s on the MI300A versus system-dependent bandwidth on the Arc 140V. The MI300A's 8192-bit bus provides a fixed 5.32 TB/s, while the Arc 140V's shared memory bandwidth varies with the host system.

The Arc 140V counters with features the MI300A lacks. Its pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s shows rasterization capability, whereas the MI300A outputs 0 MPixel/s. The Arc 140V's 32 ROPs support pixel processing, while the MI300A has zero ROPs. Ray tracing is present on the Arc 140V with 8 RT cores, giving it hardware acceleration for ray-traced workloads; the MI300A has no RT cores. The Arc 140V also supports modern graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300A reports N/A for all three.

Clock speeds favor the MI300A on the base side (1000 MHz versus 300 MHz), but the boost clocks are closer: 2100 MHz versus 1950 MHz. The MI300A's higher base clock suggests sustained compute headroom, while the Arc 140V's lower base clock reflects its power-constrained mobile design. The MI300A's 750 W TDP allows aggressive clocking, whereas the Arc 140V's 37 W TDP restricts sustained performance.

Manufacturing technology differs by node generation. The Arc 140V uses the newer 3 nm process versus the MI300A's 5 nm node, though the MI300A compensates with a far larger die. The MI300A's transistor density of 150.4M per mm² shows packing efficiency, but the Arc 140V's density is not recorded. The MI300A's 153,000 million transistors dwarf the Arc 140V's unknown count, reflecting their vastly different die sizes and purposes.

In practical terms, the MI300A is engineered for throughput-heavy tasks like scientific simulation or AI training, where its 61.29 TFLOPS and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth provide raw compute. The Arc 140V is built for integrated graphics in portable devices, where its 37 W TDP and 8 RT cores enable mainstream graphics and ray tracing without discrete hardware. The data indicates no overlap in intended workloads, and the specification sheets confirm this bifurcation: the MI300A offers no display outputs or API support, while the Arc 140V provides full API compatibility and mobile display functionality.