AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc Graphics 32EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI300A and Intel Arc Graphics 32EU. The AMD Instinct MI300A has no benchmark scores listed, an average benchmark score of zero, and a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, by contrast, has a single recorded result in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, scoring 733 points, placing it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs.

Because the MI300A has no benchmark data, the comparison relies on its thermal, memory, and output characteristics against the Arc 32EU's actual tested performance. The Arc 32EU's 733 score sits even with the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU at 733 points, a delta of 0 percent. It also matches the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU at 733 points, another 0 percent delta. Against the AMD Radeon HD 6470M, the Arc 32EU is 1.4 percent ahead, as that rival scores 723. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, putting the Arc 32EU 2.4 percent behind.

The MI300A offers no display outputs and no pixel rate, while the Arc 32EU provides a pixel rate of 15.60 GPixel/s. The Arc 32EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI300A lists N/A for all three APIs. These differences mean the Arc 32EU can run graphical workloads and output to a display, while the MI300A is not configured for graphics output at all.

FP32 compute tells the larger story. The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Arc 32EU delivers 998.4 GFLOPS. That is a massive gap, roughly 61 times the single-precision throughput in favor of the MI300A. Texture rate follows the same pattern: the MI300A reaches 1,915.2 GTexel/s, while the Arc 32EU reaches 31.20 GTexel/s. The MI300A is over 61 times faster in texture fill rate. In FP16, the Arc 32EU reaches 1.997 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio; the MI300A lists no FP16 figure in the database.

Memory bandwidth is equally lopsided. The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s. The Arc 32EU uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no fixed figure applies. The MI300A's memory clock runs at 1300 MHz, or 5.2 Gbps effective. The Arc 32EU's memory is shared with the host system, so no dedicated memory clock is recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU wins in any scenario requiring graphical output or standard consumer API support. It has a pixel rate of 15.60 GPixel/s, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its display outputs are motherboard dependent, meaning it can drive displays through the host platform. It also has a recorded benchmark result in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, scoring 733 points, which places it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. That is a low percentile, but it is a measurable result. The MI300A has no such result, listing N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and no display outputs.

The AMD Instinct MI300A wins in raw compute density. Its FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS dwarfs the Arc 32EU's 998.4 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s confirms the same gap. The MI300A also carries 128 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth on an 8192-bit bus, which is suitable for large data sets that exceed the system shared memory available to the Arc 32EU. The MI300A's transistor count of 153,000 million on a 1017 mm² die indicates a part built for massive parallel workloads, not for conventional graphics rendering.

The Arc 32EU wins on power envelope. Its TDP is 65 W, while the MI300A is rated at 750 W. The Arc 32EU is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) using a ring bus interface, so it does not require a separate power connector or a dedicated power supply recommendation. The MI300A uses an OAM module slot width, has no power connectors listed, and recommends a 1150 W PSU. For systems where power draw and thermal output matter, the Arc 32EU is the practical choice.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip code-named Aqua Vanjaram. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². It belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation and uses the PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

The Arc 32EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on Arrow Lake-S silicon. It is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 73.3 million per mm². It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation and uses a ring bus interface.

The MI300A has 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units. It has no raster operation units listed, and its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s. The Arc 32EU has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. Both parts list no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores in the database.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc 32EU uses system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width. The MI300A's memory clock is 1300 MHz, or 5.2 Gbps effective, while the Arc 32EU's memory clock is listed as system shared.

API support also separates the two. The MI300A lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The Arc 32EU lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs are absent on the MI300A, while the Arc 32EU's outputs are motherboard dependent.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification. The MI300A uses a 5 nm process; the Arc 32EU uses 3 nm. The MI300A has 153,000 million transistors; the Arc 32EU has 17,800 million. The MI300A die measures 1017 mm²; the Arc 32EU die measures 243 mm². Transistor density is 150.4 million per mm² for the MI300A and 73.3 million per mm² for the Arc 32EU.

Base clocks differ: 1000 MHz for the MI300A versus 300 MHz for the Arc 32EU. Boost clocks are 2100 MHz for the MI300A and 1950 MHz for the Arc 32EU. The MI300A has a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the Arc 32EU uses system shared memory.

Shading unit counts are 14,592 for the MI300A and 256 for the Arc 32EU. Texture mapping units are 912 versus 16. The MI300A has no ROPs listed; the Arc 32EU has 8. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI300A and 15.60 GPixel/s for the Arc 32EU. Texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s. FP32 is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 998.4 GFLOPS. The Arc 32EU lists FP16 at 1.997 TFLOPS (2:1); the MI300A lists no FP16 figure.

Memory size is 128 GB of HBM3 for the MI300A versus system shared for the Arc 32EU. Bus width is 8192 bit versus system shared. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus system dependent. TDP is 750 W versus 65 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus IGP. The MI300A has no power connectors and recommends a 1150 W PSU; the Arc 32EU lists no power connectors and no PSU suggestion. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus ring bus. Display outputs are absent on the MI300A and motherboard dependent on the Arc 32EU.

Release dates differ: the MI300A launched on 2023-12-05, while the Arc 32EU launched on 2024-10-23. The MI300A's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the Arc 32EU's predecessor is HD Graphics-M. The Arc 32EU has an active production status; the MI300A has none listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A has 14,592 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has 256.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, the Arc 32EU lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the MI300A?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How does the FP32 performance compare?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Arc 32EU delivers 998.4 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the TDP of each part?

A: The MI300A is rated at 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc 32EU is rated at 65 W and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Does the MI300A have any benchmark results in the database?

A: No, the MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores and an average benchmark score of zero. The Arc 32EU has one recorded result, 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two parts with almost no overlap in purpose. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a 750 W OAM module built on CDNA 3.0 with 128 GB of HBM3, 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, and 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no benchmark scores in the database. It is designed for compute workloads that fit within its 128 GB memory pool and scale across its 14,592 shading units.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is a 65 W integrated GPU on the Arrow Lake-S die. It has a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, placing it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs, level with the Arc 24EU and Arc 64EU, 1.4 percent ahead of the Radeon HD 6470M, and 2.4 percent behind the GeForce GT 415M. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it can drive displays through the motherboard.

The data indicates that the MI300A should be selected for compute-heavy tasks requiring large memory capacity and massive FP32 throughput. The Arc 32EU should be selected for systems needing integrated graphics output with modern API support and a low 65 W power draw. The MI300A has no graphics output and cannot run standard graphics APIs, so it cannot substitute for the Arc 32EU in display roles. Conversely, the Arc 32EU's 998.4 GFLOPS FP32 performance and system shared memory place it far below the MI300A's 61.29 TFLOPS and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth for compute workloads. The choice follows the workload, not the benchmark score, because the MI300A has no score and the Arc 32EU has no compute-oriented result.