AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct comparative benchmark scores between the AMD Instinct MI300A and the Intel Arc A380M. Both products sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, and both carry an average benchmark score of 0. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, meaning no measured performance deltas exist to report. This absence of data is itself informative: the two parts occupy entirely different segments, and the database has not recorded any workload where both were tested under identical conditions.

The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc A380M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That places the MI300A at roughly 15 times the raw FP32 throughput of the A380M, a gap so wide that no workload in the database bridges it. Texture rate tells a similar story: the MI300A reaches 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s for the A380M. Pixel rate is the one category where the Intel part shows a functional advantage, with 64.00 GPixel/s against 0 MPixel/s for the AMD accelerator, which has no raster output units and no display outputs.

Memory bandwidth follows the same lopsided pattern. The MI300A accesses 5.32 TB/s across an 8192-bit HBM3 interface, while the A380M manages 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit GDDR6 bus. That is a 28.6 times bandwidth advantage for the AMD product. The MI300A also ships with 128 GB of memory versus 6 GB for the Intel part, a 21.3 times capacity difference. These figures indicate that any benchmark involving large memory footprints or bandwidth-bound kernels would favor the MI300A by an order of magnitude, while the database simply has no recorded scores to quantify that expectation.

The Intel Arc A380M does hold advantages in specific architectural features. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI300A reports N/A for all three graphics APIs. The A380M includes 8 ray tracing cores and 32 ROPs, while the MI300A lists 0 ROPs and no ray tracing cores. In any DirectX or Vulkan benchmark, the A380M would be the only one of the two that could execute the workload at all. The database records no such benchmark scores, so the comparison remains structural rather than measured.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The A380M runs at a 1550 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, while the MI300A runs at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The AMD part has a higher peak clock by 100 MHz, but the Intel part has a higher base clock by 550 MHz. The MI300A's massive shading unit count of 14592 versus 1024 means the clock advantage of the A380M does not translate into compute leadership in any recorded metric.

The Verdict

The data shows two products with almost no overlap in purpose. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a compute accelerator with 14592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, 128 GB of HBM3 memory, and no display outputs. The Intel Arc A380M is a mobile graphics module with 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, 8 ray tracing cores, and display outputs described as portable device dependent. The MI300A targets workloads that need maximum FP32 throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth. The A380M targets graphics rendering and API compatibility in a 35 W power envelope.

The MI300A wins every raw compute metric recorded in the database. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 figure is 15 times the A380M's 4.096 TFLOPS. Its 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth is 28.6 times the A380M's 186.0 GB/s. Its 128 GB memory capacity is 21.3 times the A380M's 6 GB. Its 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU place it in a server-class power domain, while the A380M's 35 W TDP suits compact mobile platforms. A user selecting between these two based on the recorded data would choose based on power envelope and graphics API support versus raw compute and memory resources.

The A380M wins in graphics-specific features. It is the only one of the two with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, or Vulkan 1.4 support. It is the only one with ray tracing cores. It is the only one with a non-zero pixel rate. For any workload that requires rasterization, ray tracing, or a graphics API, the A380M is the only viable option in this comparison. The MI300A offers no display outputs and no graphics API support, making it unsuitable for rendering tasks.

Neither product has a recorded launch MSRP in the database, and no benchmark scores exist for either part. The percentile ranking of 50 for both indicates they sit at the median of all GPUs in the database, but with no benchmark data behind those rankings, the percentile values carry limited interpretive weight. The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the MI300A is the compute leader by every measured specification, the A380M is the graphics leader by every supported feature.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A wins in every category where raw throughput or capacity is the deciding factor. FP32 compute, texture rate, memory bandwidth, memory size, memory bus width, and shading unit count all favor the MI300A by wide margins. The 8192-bit memory bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth indicate workloads that stream large datasets will see outsized benefits. The 153,000 million transistor count on a 1017 mm² die at 5 nm TSMC process gives it 150.4M transistors per mm², suggesting a design optimized for dense compute rather than graphics output.

The Intel Arc A380M wins in power efficiency and graphics capability. Its 35 W TDP is 21.4 times lower than the MI300A's 750 W TDP. It fits an MXM Module slot with an MXM-A (3.1) bus interface, while the MI300A uses an OAM Module with PCIe 5.0 x16. The A380M's 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die produces a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². Its memory clock of 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective data rate is higher than the MI300A's 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, though the MI300A compensates with a far wider bus.

The production status field marks the A380M as active, while the MI300A has no production status recorded. The A380M launched on 2023-01-23, and the MI300A launched on 2023-12-05. The MI300A lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, while the A380M has no predecessor recorded. These lifecycle details suggest the A380M is an established active product, while the MI300A's status is less clearly documented in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 4.096 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc A380M, a 15 times advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380M support more graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A reports N/A for all three graphics APIs.

Q: How much memory does each product have?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 96-bit bus and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which product has ray tracing support?

A: The Intel Arc A380M includes 8 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI300A lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the power requirements of each?

A: The MI300A has a 750 W TDP and suggests a 1150 W PSU. The A380M has a 35 W TDP with no suggested PSU recorded.

Q: Which product has display outputs?

A: The MI300A has no display outputs. The A380M has display outputs described as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. It contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel Arc A380M uses the DG2-128 chip with Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The MI300A belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the A380M belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation.

The MI300A has 14592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units but 0 ROPs. The A380M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The A380M includes 8 ray tracing cores; the MI300A has none. Neither product lists tensor cores in the database. The MI300A's pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, while the A380M reaches 64.00 GPixel/s. The MI300A's texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s for the A380M.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI300A uses HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus and 1300 MHz memory clock at 5.2 Gbps effective, producing 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The A380M uses GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 1937 MHz memory clock at 15.5 Gbps effective, producing 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300A's memory system is designed for massive parallel throughput, while the A380M's narrower and faster-clocked GDDR6 suits a mobile graphics workload.

The MI300A supports FP32 at 61.29 TFLOPS with no FP16 figure recorded. The A380M supports FP32 at 4.096 TFLOPS and FP16 at 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The MI300A has no graphics API support recorded. The A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A uses an OAM Module slot width with PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface and no power connectors. The A380M uses an MXM Module slot width with MXM-A (3.1) bus interface and no power connector details recorded.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification. Process node differs: 5 nm for the MI300A, 6 nm for the A380M. Transistor count differs: 153,000 million versus 7,200 million. Die size differs: 1017 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density differs: 150.4M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Base clock differs: 1000 MHz for the MI300A, 1550 MHz for the A380M. Boost clock differs: 2100 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Memory clock differs: 1300 MHz at 5.2 Gbps effective versus 1937 MHz at 15.5 Gbps effective. Memory size differs: 128 GB versus 6 GB. Memory type differs: HBM3 versus GDDR6. Memory bus width differs: 8192 bit versus 96 bit. Memory bandwidth differs: 5.32 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s.

Shading units differ: 14592 versus 1024. TMUs differ: 912 versus 64. ROPs differ: 0 versus 32. Ray tracing cores differ: none versus 8. Pixel rate differs: 0 MPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate differs: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. FP32 differs: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16 is recorded only for the A380M at 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP differs: 750 W versus 35 W. Slot width differs: OAM Module versus MXM Module. Power connectors differ: none for the MI300A, not recorded for the A380M. Suggested PSU differs: 1150 W for the MI300A, not recorded for the A380M. Bus interface differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.1). Display outputs differ: no outputs versus portable device dependent. DirectX support differs: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL support differs: N/A versus 4.6. Vulkan support differs: N/A versus 1.4. Release dates differ: 2023-12-05 for the MI300A, 2023-01-23 for the A380M. Production status differs: not recorded for the MI300A, active for the A380M. Predecessor differs: Radeon Instinct for the MI300A, none for the A380M. The MI300A has no successor recorded, and neither does the A380M. Neither product has a launch MSRP in the database.