AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc B770 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI300A or the Intel Arc B770. Both products have an average benchmark score of 0, and the head-to-head benchmark comparison table is empty. The wins counter shows 0 for each side. Without measured performance data, a numerical comparison of frame rates, compute throughput, or application-level results cannot be established from the recorded information.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, a tie that reflects the absence of test results rather than equivalent measured performance. The absence of benchmark entries means that any claim about one product outperforming the other in a specific workload would be unsupported by the data. The database simply records no wins for either product.

The raw specifications do provide a theoretical basis for comparison. The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS. That is a 41.63 TFLOPS gap, or roughly 3.1 times the FP32 throughput on the AMD side. In texture rate, the MI300A reaches 1,915.2 GTexel/s compared to 614.4 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 1,300.8 GTexel/s difference. The MI300A also holds a massive memory bandwidth advantage: 5.32 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s, which is a 10.4 times difference in favor of the AMD accelerator.

The Arc B770 counters in pixel rate and API support. Its pixel rate is 307.2 GPixel/s, while the MI300A is recorded at 0 MPixel/s, as the AMD product has no display outputs and no raster output units. The Intel card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its compute-accelerator design rather than a consumer graphics product.

Where Each One Wins

Without benchmark results, the wins for each product must be derived from specification differences and intended use cases as recorded in the database.

The AMD Instinct MI300A is positioned for compute-heavy workloads. Its FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS, texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s, and memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s point to tasks that saturate parallel floating-point pipelines and demand enormous memory throughput. The 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus far exceeds the 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus found in the Intel card. For large matrix operations, scientific simulations, or AI training and inference workloads that require massive memory capacity and bandwidth, the MI300A holds the clear specification advantage.

The Intel Arc B770 is a consumer-facing graphics card. It has 32 ray tracing cores, 128 ROPs, display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate support. Its pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s is the only fill-rate category where it leads, because the MI300A has no pixel pipeline. The B770 also supports FP16 compute at 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1), which the MI300A does not list. For rasterized gaming, ray-traced rendering, or any workload that requires a display output, the Arc B770 is the only one of the two that can function at all.

The power profiles reinforce the split. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and requires a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the Arc B770 has a TDP of 225 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The AMD accelerator is designed for server racks with OAM module slot width and no power connectors, meaning it draws power through the module interface. The Intel card is a dual-slot PCIe card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A records 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc B770 records 19.66 TFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI300A has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The Arc B770 has 512.0 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the MI300A support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. The MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Arc B770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU can output to a display?

A: Only the Intel Arc B770 has display outputs, with 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300A has no display outputs.

Q: What is the pixel rate of each GPU?

A: The Arc B770 has a pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s. The MI300A is recorded at 0 MPixel/s, as it has no ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc B770 has 32 ray tracing cores. The MI300A has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every recorded specification category.

The MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip on a 5 nm TSMC process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Arc B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip, also on a 5 nm TSMC process, with a 368 mm² die and unknown transistor count. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Arc B770 has a base clock of 2100 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The memory clock differs as well: 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective for the AMD part, 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for the Intel part.

Memory capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ. The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts differ substantially. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Arc B770 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The Intel card has 32 ray tracing cores; the AMD card lists none. FP32 output is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS. The Arc B770 lists FP16 at 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1), a field left null for the MI300A.

Power and physical configuration differ. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W, an OAM Module slot width, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc B770 has a TDP of 225 W, a dual-slot form factor, 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Bus interface and display outputs differ. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no display outputs. The Arc B770 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and has 1x HDMI 2.1a plus 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

API support differs completely. The MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Arc B770 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates and predecessors differ. The MI300A was released on 2023-12-05, with the Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. The Arc B770 was released on 2025-12-31, with Alchemist as its predecessor.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. The Arc B770 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation.

The CDNA 3.0 architecture is designed for data center compute acceleration. The MI300A has no ROPs, no ray tracing cores, no display outputs, and no consumer graphics API support, which indicates a compute-first design. Its 14592 shading units and 912 TMUs are arranged for parallel floating-point throughput, and the 128 GB HBM3 stack with an 8192-bit bus provides exceptional memory capacity for large datasets. The OAM module form factor and lack of power connectors confirm it is meant for server platforms.

The Xe2-HPG architecture is designed for consumer graphics and gaming. The Arc B770 includes 32 ray tracing cores, 128 ROPs, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, along with display outputs. Its 4096 shading units and 256 TMUs are fewer than the MI300A, but the architecture includes features the AMD part lacks, such as a raster pipeline and ray tracing hardware. The 16 GB GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus is a conventional consumer configuration.

Both use a 5 nm TSMC process, but the die sizes differ widely. The MI300A measures 1017 mm² and contains 153,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Arc B770 measures 368 mm² with an unknown transistor count. The MI300A uses HBM3 memory, while the Arc B770 uses GDDR6.

The clock strategies differ as well. The Arc B770 runs higher clocks, with a base of 2100 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz, compared to the MI300A's 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The MI300A compensates with a much wider memory bus and far more shading units.

The power envelopes reflect the architectural intent. The MI300A draws up to 750 W, while the Arc B770 draws 225 W. The AMD accelerator targets sustained compute workloads in server environments, whereas the Intel card targets consumer systems with a standard dual-slot layout and auxiliary power connectors.