AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc B390 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300A and Intel Arc B390 occupy opposite extremes of the GPU design spectrum, and benchmark data reflects this divergence clearly. The MI300A is a compute-oriented accelerator with a 50th percentile ranking across all GPUs in the database, while the Arc B390 sits at the 9th percentile with a single recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. The MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, which limits direct comparison, but its architectural specifications indicate a fundamentally different purpose.

The Arc B390's nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA entry-level parts: the GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% behind), GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% behind), GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% behind), and GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% behind). This places the Arc B390 marginally ahead of these legacy mobile and OEM graphics solutions in the Steel Nomad test. The MI300A has no nearest rivals recorded, which suggests its performance profile does not align with conventional GPU benchmark comparisons.

For buyers, the data indicates the MI300A targets high-throughput compute workloads requiring massive memory bandwidth and parallel processing capacity. The Arc B390 serves as an integrated graphics solution for portable devices, with its performance clustering near decade-old discrete GPUs. Neither product competes in the same market segment, and the choice depends entirely on whether the workload demands accelerator-class resources or basic integrated graphics capability.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. The die measures 1017 mm² and contains 153,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². This is a massive compute die with 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units. Notably, the MI300A has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming it is not designed for rasterization or display output. It has no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

The Arc B390 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Panther Lake chip, fabricated on a 3 nm Intel process. Transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database. The Arc B390 integrates 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, plus 12 ray tracing cores. It delivers a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. The B390 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, positioning it as a fully featured graphics solution for modern APIs.

The MI300A's memory subsystem uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. Memory clocks run at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed. The Arc B390 relies on system shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth described as "System Shared" and "System Dependent" respectively. This fundamental memory architecture difference explains the MI300A's compute focus versus the B390's integrated approach.

Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The MI300A runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc B390 operates at 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost. The B390's higher boost clock reflects its graphics-oriented design, but the MI300A's lower clocks are compensated by its massive parallel resources and memory bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 performance, while the Arc B390 provides 7.680 TFLOPS. The MI300A offers roughly eight times the FP32 throughput, indicating its design for heavy parallel computation.

Q: Can the Arc B390 run modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the Arc B390 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A has no API support for these graphics interfaces, with all three listed as N/A.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B390 uses system shared memory, with capacity, bus width, and bandwidth dependent on the host system.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the Arc B390 scores 1482, which is 1.3% ahead of the GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% ahead of the GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% ahead of the GT 710 (1443).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU rating of 1150 W, while the Arc B390 has a TDP of 80 W and no suggested PSU listed. The MI300A consumes significantly more power due to its compute-oriented design.

Q: Are these GPUs suitable for display output?

A: The MI300A has no display outputs and is designed as an OAM module without any video connectivity. The Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it supports displays in the portable devices where it is integrated.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The MI300A uses a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Arc B390 uses a 3 nm Intel process. Transistor counts are listed at 153,000 million for the MI300A and unknown for the B390. Die size measures 1017 mm² for the MI300A against an unknown figure for the B390.

Shading units: 14,592 on the MI300A versus 1,536 on the Arc B390. TMUs: 912 versus 48. ROPs: 0 versus 24. The B390 includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the MI300A has none listed. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS. FP16: not listed for the MI300A, versus 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) for the B390.

Memory: 128 GB HBM3 with 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth on the MI300A, versus system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth on the B390. Clocks: 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost for the MI300A, versus 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost for the B390. TDP: 750 W versus 80 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus IGP. Power connectors: none on either. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300A, versus IGP for the B390. Display outputs: no outputs versus portable device dependent. APIs: N/A for the MI300A, versus DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for the B390. Production status: not listed for the MI300A, active for the B390. Release dates: December 5, 2023 for the MI300A, January 26, 2026 for the B390. Predecessor: Radeon Instinct for the MI300A, none listed for the B390.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the MI300A and Arc B390, and the win counts stand at zero for both. The MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores and no nearest rivals, while the Arc B390 has a single benchmark entry.

The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in a cluster with very old NVIDIA parts. The GT 520MX trails by 1.3% with a score of 1463, the GeForce 800M trails by 1.5% at 1460, the GT 625 OEM trails by 2.5% at 1446, and the GT 710 trails by 2.7% at 1443. These deltas are small, indicating that the Arc B390's graphics performance is comparable to these legacy parts rather than representing a significant generational leap.

The MI300A's architectural data suggests compute capabilities far beyond the B390. Its FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS is eight times the B390's 7.680 TFLOPS. Texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s is roughly sixteen times the B390's 120.0 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s is not comparable to the B390's system dependent shared memory, but the magnitude indicates a completely different performance class.

The MI300A's zero ROP count and lack of graphics APIs mean it cannot render frames in the traditional sense, making the Steel Nomad benchmark inapplicable to it. Conversely, the B390's 24 ROPs and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate demonstrate its ability to handle rasterization workloads. The MI300A's 2100 MHz boost clock is lower than the B390's 2500 MHz, but the MI300A compensates with far more execution units.

In terms of production status, the B390 is marked active while the MI300A has no status listed. Release dates show the MI300A arrived in December 2023, while the B390 is slated for January 2026. The MI300A's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the B390 has no predecessor listed.

The Arc B390's 9th percentile ranking across all GPUs indicates it falls below the vast majority of recorded graphics hardware. The MI300A's 50th percentile ranking reflects its different benchmark population, which likely includes compute-oriented tests rather than graphics workloads. The average benchmark score for the MI300A is 0, while the B390 averages 1482 from its single test.

Power requirements differ by an order of magnitude: 750 W versus 80 W. The MI300A requires a 1150 W suggested PSU, while the B390 has no such requirement due to its integrated nature. Slot widths reflect this as well: the MI300A uses an OAM module form factor, while the B390 is an IGP. Both use no external power connectors, but for different reasons: the MI300A receives power through its OAM socket, while the B390 draws from the host processor package.

The MI300A's transistor density of 150.4 million per mm² reflects the dense compute layout of the 5 nm TSMC process. The B390's 3 nm Intel process likely offers higher density, but the database lists no figures. The MI300A's 1017 mm² die is among the largest in the database, while the B390's die size remains unknown.

Ray tracing support exists only on the B390 with 12 RT cores. The MI300A has no RT cores listed, consistent with its compute focus rather than graphics rendering. The B390's DirectX 12 Ultimate support includes ray tracing features, while the MI300A cannot run any DirectX workloads.

The data shows two products that share a GPU classification but little else. The MI300A delivers accelerator-class compute with massive memory and throughput, while the B390 provides entry-level integrated graphics with modern API support. Benchmark scores exist only for the B390, and they place it near legacy NVIDIA parts. The MI300A's performance must be inferred from its specifications, which indicate a compute device rather than a graphics card.