AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

The Verdict

The data distinguishes two accelerators with entirely different design targets. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a high-density compute module built for massive parallel workloads, while the Intel Arc A310E is a low-profile graphics card aimed at embedded and edge applications. The recorded specifications show no overlap in performance class: the MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 against the A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS, a 20x gap in raw floating-point throughput. Conversely, the A310E provides display outputs, a full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, and a 75 W power envelope, while the MI300A has no display outputs and consumes 750 W. The database shows the MI300A occupies the 50th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 0, and the A310E holds the same percentile and score; neither has recorded benchmark entries, so the verdict relies on architectural and specification comparisons. The MI300A suits server-scale compute, scientific simulation, and HPC memory-bound tasks. The A310E suits compact, power-constrained systems needing graphics output and modern API support.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process, with the chip designated Aqua Vanjaram. It integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture on TSMC's 6 nm process, with the DG2-128 chip. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a density of 45.9 million per mm². The MI300A's die is roughly 6.5 times larger and carries 21 times more transistors, but the density advantage is 3.3x in favor of AMD, reflecting the tighter 5 nm rules.

The MI300A has no dedicated ray tracing cores listed, while the A310E includes 6 ray tracing cores. The MI300A has no tensor core count recorded, while the A310E lists no tensor core field but does provide FP16 throughput at 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The MI300A's FP32 rate is 61.29 TFLOPS, coming from 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and no ROPs; its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s and texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s. The A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, a pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 64.00 GTexel/s.

The MI300A lacks any API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, all marked N/A. The A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A uses an OAM module slot width with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The A310E is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, uses no external power connectors, and requires a 250 W suggested PSU.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s bandwidth at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 124.0 GB/s at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The MI300A's memory bandwidth is 43 times higher, and its bus width is 128 times wider.

FAQ

Q: Which product has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, while the A310E provides 3.072 TFLOPS. The MI300A is 20 times faster in this metric.

Q: Which product supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists N/A for all three APIs, meaning no graphics API support is recorded.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do power requirements compare?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The A310E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: What is the release timeline?

A: The MI300A released on 2023-12-05, and the A310E released on 2024-03-31.

Q: Which product has display outputs?

A: The A310E has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The MI300A has no display outputs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300A | Intel Arc A310E |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Process node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 7,200 million |

| Die size | 1017 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor density | 150.4M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2100 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 128 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 8192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 124.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 14592 | 768 |

| TMUs | 912 | 32 |

| ROPs | 0 | 16 |

| Ray tracing cores | None | 6 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 32.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 1,915.2 GTexel/s | 64.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 61.29 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 75 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 168 mm 6.6 inches, 69 mm 2.7 inches, 20 mm 0.8 inches |

| Production status | Not listed | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2023-12-05 | 2024-03-31 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | Not listed | Battlemage |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the database for these two products, and neither has recorded individual benchmark scores. The comparison therefore rests on measured specification data. The MI300A's FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS is 20 times the A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. In texture rate, the MI300A achieves 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, a 30x advantage. Memory bandwidth shows the largest gap: 5.32 TB/s against 124.0 GB/s, meaning the MI300A transfers data 43 times faster. The A310E counters in pixel rate, producing 32.00 GPixel/s while the MI300A produces 0 MPixel/s due to having no ROPs. The A310E also supports FP16 compute at 6.144 TFLOPS, a feature not listed for the MI300A.

The MI300A's base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 2100 MHz, while the A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The A310E's memory clock is higher in effective terms at 15.5 Gbps versus 5.2 Gbps, but the MI300A's vastly wider bus compensates. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16, twice the lane width and one generation newer than the A310E's PCIe 4.0 x8. The A310E's 6 ray tracing cores are absent from the MI300A's specification sheet. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units versus 768, a 19x difference, and 912 TMUs versus 32, a 28.5x difference.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins in every compute-heavy metric. Its FP32 output of 61.29 TFLOPS suits dense floating-point workloads such as scientific simulation, AI training, and high-performance computing. The 128 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth supports massive datasets that cannot fit in the A310E's 4 GB GDDR6. The 8192-bit bus eliminates memory bottlenecks for bandwidth-bound kernels. The 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU indicate a system designed for sustained, high-throughput operation in server racks, not desktop use. The OAM module form factor with no display outputs confirms a headless compute accelerator role.

The A310E wins in graphics and edge scenarios. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs enable direct display connection, which the MI300A cannot do. The DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support allows it to run modern graphics workloads, including ray-traced rendering via its 6 ray tracing cores. The 16 ROPs and 32.00 GPixel/s pixel rate provide rasterization output, a capability entirely missing from the MI300A. The 75 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU fits into power-constrained embedded systems, digital signage, or small form factor industrial PCs. The single-slot design measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm allows installation in compact chassis. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is sufficient for graphics workloads and reduces host system requirements compared to the MI300A's PCIe 5.0 x16.

The production status of the A310E is end-of-life, with a successor listed as Battlemage, while the MI300A has no recorded production status or successor. The MI300A's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, and the A310E's predecessor is Xe Graphics. The release dates place the MI300A earlier by roughly four months, with the A310E arriving 2024-03-31. The MI300A's 5 nm process and 153,000 million transistors represent a much larger investment in silicon, while the A310E's 6 nm process and 7,200 million transistors reflect a smaller, more efficient design. Neither product has recorded benchmark scores, so the percentile ranking of 50 for both is based on the database's default assignment, not measured performance. The data supports a clear split: the MI300A for compute density and memory capacity, the A310E for graphics output and low-power operation.