AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI300A or the Intel Arc A380E. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and zero recorded wins in head-to-head comparisons. The percentile ranking for both parts sits at 50, indicating that neither has a measurable performance footprint in the current benchmark suite. This is not a case of one part dominating the other; it is a case where the database has no empirical data to differentiate them.

What the data does show is the theoretical ceiling each part operates under. The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That is a 15x gap in raw shader throughput, though it is meaningless without benchmark confirmation. The texture rate tells a similar story: 1,915.2 GTexel/s for the MI300A versus 128.0 GTexel/s for the A380E, a 15x difference again. Pixel rate is where the comparison breaks down entirely, the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs and no display outputs, while the A380E manages 64.00 GPixel/s.

Since the head-to-head benchmark array is empty, the only valid interpretation is that these two parts do not compete in the same performance class and the database has not attempted to compare them directly. The MI300A is a compute accelerator with a 750 W thermal envelope and 128 GB of HBM3 memory. The A380E is a 75 W graphics card with 6 GB of GDDR6. The benchmark scores, or lack thereof, reflect that these are tools for entirely different workloads.

The Verdict

From the recorded data alone, the MI300A is the choice for any workload that demands massive FP32 compute, enormous memory capacity, or extreme memory bandwidth. It offers 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The A380E offers 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s. The MI300A also supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the A380E uses PCIe 4.0 x8. If the task involves large-scale compute, the MI300A has the specifications to handle it, though the database does not provide benchmark proof of that.

The A380E is the choice for any workload that requires actual graphics output. It has 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A has no display outputs and lists its DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A. The A380E also has 8 ray tracing cores, a feature the MI300A does not list at all. For rendering, ray tracing, or any visual output, the A380E is the only viable option from this data.

The MI300A uses a 5 nm process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The A380E uses a 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The MI300A is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the A380E uses Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip. These are fundamentally different products with different purposes. The data does not support a direct performance comparison, but it does support a clear use-case separation.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins in every metric related to raw compute capacity. Its 14592 shading units dwarf the A380E's 1024. Its 912 texture mapping units dwarf the A380E's 64. Its FP32 output of 61.29 TFLOPS is 15x higher than the A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS. Its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s is 28.6x higher than the A380E's 186.0 GB/s. Its 128 GB memory capacity is 21.3x larger than the A380E's 6 GB. The MI300A also has a higher boost clock at 2100 MHz versus 2000 MHz for the A380E, though the A380E's base clock of 2000 MHz is double the MI300A's 1000 MHz base.

The A380E wins in every metric related to graphics output and practical desktop use. It has 32 ROPs, while the MI300A has 0. It delivers 64.00 GPixel/s, while the MI300A delivers 0 MPixel/s. It has 8 ray tracing cores, while the MI300A lists none. It has display outputs, while the MI300A has none. The A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300A supports none of these APIs. The A380E also has a single-slot form factor with dimensions of 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width, while the MI300A uses an OAM Module form factor with no listed dimensions.

The A380E also wins on power efficiency in the sense that it requires a 250 W suggested PSU versus the MI300A's 1150 W. The A380E draws 75 W TDP versus 750 W for the MI300A. Neither part requires external power connectors, but the system power requirements differ substantially. The A380E is end-of-life production status with a successor named Battlemage, while the MI300A has no production status listed and no successor named.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. The MI300A is 15x higher.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 8 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI300A does not list any ray tracing cores.

Q: Which GPU has display outputs?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The AMD Instinct MI300A has no display outputs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 memory. The Intel Arc A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Which GPU supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Arc A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI300A lists all three APIs as N/A.

Q: What is the power requirement for each?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A has a 750 W TDP and requires a 1150 W suggested PSU. The Intel Arc A380E has a 75 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300A uses CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The Intel Arc A380E uses Xe-HPG architecture, built on the DG2-128 chip. The MI300A is part of the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the A380E is part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The MI300A uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the A380E uses a 6 nm process from TSMC.

The transistor counts differ by an order of magnitude. The MI300A packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The A380E packs 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The MI300A has 14592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units, but 0 ROPs and no ray tracing cores. The A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores.

The memory architectures are completely different. The MI300A uses HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 128 GB capacity. The A380E uses GDDR6 memory with a 96-bit bus and 6 GB capacity. The MI300A provides 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, while the A380E provides 186.0 GB/s. The MI300A's memory runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the A380E's memory runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

The MI300A supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the A380E supports PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300A has no display outputs, while the A380E has 4x DisplayPort 2.0. The MI300A uses an OAM Module slot width, while the A380E is single-slot. The MI300A has no power connectors listed, as does the A380E, but the system power requirements differ dramatically.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every specification field. The clock speeds show a notable divergence: the MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the A380E has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The MI300A boosts 100 MHz higher, but the A380E runs 1000 MHz higher at base.

The memory specifications are entirely different. The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3, while the A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6. The bus width is 8192 bit for the MI300A versus 96 bit for the A380E. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s. The memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the MI300A versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for the A380E.

The compute units differ: 14592 shading units for the MI300A versus 1024 for the A380E. The texture mapping units are 912 versus 64. The ROPs are 0 versus 32. The MI300A has no listed ray tracing cores, while the A380E has 8. The pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI300A versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the A380E. The texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s.

The power specifications are equally divergent. The MI300A has a 750 W TDP, while the A380E has a 75 W TDP. The suggested PSU is 1150 W for the MI300A versus 250 W for the A380E. The slot width is OAM Module for the MI300A versus single-slot for the A380E. The A380E has physical dimensions of 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width; the MI300A lists no dimensions.

The API support differs completely. The MI300A lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The display outputs are absent on the MI300A and present as 4x DisplayPort 2.0 on the A380E. The release dates differ: the MI300A released on 2023-12-05, while the A380E released on 2024-03-31. The A380E is marked as end-of-life with a successor named Battlemage, while the MI300A has no production status or successor listed.