AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU occupy completely different segments of the hardware spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that divide in stark terms. The MI300A is a data center accelerator with no recorded benchmark entries in the database, while the Arc Graphics 64EU is an integrated graphics solution with a single recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733 points. This places the Intel part at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outperforms only a small fraction of the database's tracked devices.

The MI300A's percentile ranking of 50 with an average benchmark score of 0 indicates that it has not been subjected to the same standardized testing suite as consumer graphics products. This is not a sign of weakness; rather, it reflects the fundamentally different purpose of the device. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, by contrast, has concrete measured data showing its position relative to other entry-level and legacy parts. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU, both scoring identically at 733 points, and the AMD Radeon HD 6470M at 723 points, which the Arc 64EU leads by 1.4%. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751 points, putting the Arc 64EU 2.4% behind that part.

Where the Arc 64EU wins is in the measurable, standardized benchmark arena. It delivers a functional 3D performance level for an integrated solution, matching its lower-tier siblings and edging out a legacy discrete mobile GPU. The MI300A wins in the broader architectural sense: it is a massive accelerator with capabilities that dwarf integrated graphics, even though the database currently lacks comparative benchmark scores for it. The data shows that the MI300A is designed for compute workloads where raw throughput matters, while the Arc 64EU is designed for everyday graphics output.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share almost nothing architecturally. The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture built on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the Arc Graphics 64EU uses Xe-LPG on TSMC's 3 nm node. The process node difference is notable: 3 nm is a tighter geometry than 5 nm, which explains some of the efficiency characteristics of the Intel part despite its far smaller scale.

The MI300A's chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Arc Graphics 64EU, built on the Arrow Lake-S chip, packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, for a density of 73.3 million per square millimeter. The MI300A is more than twice as dense and nearly four times larger in die area.

Shading unit counts differ by an order of magnitude. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The Arc Graphics 64EU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The pixel rate for the MI300A is 0 MPixel/s, reflecting its lack of traditional rasterization output, while the Arc 64EU delivers 30.40 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 1,915.2 GTexel/s for the MI300A versus 60.80 GTexel/s for the Arc 64EU. FP32 compute is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 1.946 TFLOPS, respectively. The Arc 64EU also lists FP16 throughput at 3.891 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the MI300A's FP16 figure is not recorded in the database.

Memory configurations could not be more different. The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Graphics 64EU uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's RAM. Clock speeds show the MI300A running at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc 64EU runs at 300 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the MI300A, while the Arc 64EU's memory clock is tied to the shared system memory.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of purpose. The MI300A is an accelerator for compute-heavy environments: it has no display outputs, no graphics API support (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all listed as N/A), and no pixel rendering capability. Its 750 W thermal design power and OAM module form factor confirm it belongs in server racks, not desktop systems. The Arc Graphics 64EU, conversely, is an integrated graphics processor with full API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It uses 65 W, connects via the Ring Bus, and outputs to motherboards.

For users needing integrated graphics for a desktop or laptop, the Arc 64EU is the only viable choice between these two. Its 733-point benchmark score, while modest, places it within the expected range for its class. For users needing massive compute throughput for AI, scientific simulation, or data processing, the MI300A is the only option: its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 128 GB HBM3 capacity are in a different performance universe. The MI300A's lack of benchmark scores in the consumer-oriented 3DMark suite does not indicate poor performance; it indicates that the device is not intended for that workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU boosts to 1900 MHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The MI300A delivers 5.32 TB/s through HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus. The Arc Graphics 64EU uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists all graphics APIs as N/A.

Q: How does the Arc Graphics 64EU compare to the AMD Radeon HD 6470M?

A: The Arc 64EU scores 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.4% higher than the Radeon HD 6470M's 723 points.

Q: What is the transistor count for each chip?

A: The MI300A has 153,000 million transistors, while the Arc Graphics 64EU has 17,800 million transistors.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300A has a 750 W TDP and suggests a 1150 W power supply. The Arc Graphics 64EU has a 65 W TDP with no suggested PSU listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two devices, and the win counts are zero for both. This absence of comparative measurements is itself informative. The MI300A has no entries in the benchmark array, meaning it has not been evaluated with the standardized tests used for consumer graphics hardware. The Arc Graphics 64EU has exactly one recorded result: 733 points in 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12.

The nearest rival data for the Arc 64EU provides context for its performance. It matches the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU exactly at 733 points, showing that within Intel's integrated graphics lineup, the 64EU configuration does not yield a higher score in this particular test. The database shows a 1.4% advantage over the AMD Radeon HD 6470M, which scored 723 points. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads by 2.4% with 751 points. These deltas are small, indicating that the Arc 64EU sits in a tightly clustered performance band among entry-level parts.

The MI300A's specifications suggest where it would dominate if comparable benchmarks existed. Its FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS is roughly 31 times higher than the Arc 64EU's 1.946 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s is over 31 times higher than 60.80 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s versus system dependent shared memory is not directly comparable but is clearly in a different class. The MI300A's shading unit count of 14,592 versus 512 represents a 28.5-fold difference. These ratios show that any compute workload that scales with shader count, texture operations, or FP32 math would see the MI300A outperform the Arc 64EU by enormous margins.

Conversely, the Arc 64EU wins in areas the MI300A does not address: pixel output (30.40 GPixel/s versus 0), graphics API compatibility, and display connectivity. The MI300A has no display outputs and no rasterization pipeline, so any workload requiring rendered frames to be displayed must use the Arc 64EU or a similar integrated part.

Specification Differences

The two devices differ in nearly every recorded specification field. Process nodes are 5 nm for the MI300A and 3 nm for the Arc 64EU, both fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 17,800 million. Die sizes are 1017 mm² versus 243 mm². Transistor densities are 150.4M per mm² versus 73.3M per mm².

Clock specifications: the MI300A has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc 64EU has a 300 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. The MI300A's memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the Arc 64EU uses system shared memory.

Compute units: the MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Arc 64EU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 60.80 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 1.946 TFLOPS. The Arc 64EU additionally lists FP16 at 3.891 TFLOPS (2:1), while the MI300A's FP16 is not recorded.

Power and form factor: the MI300A has a 750 W TDP, uses an OAM Module slot, has no power connectors listed, and suggests a 1150 W PSU. The Arc 64EU has a 65 W TDP, uses an IGP slot, has no power connectors or suggested PSU listed. Bus interfaces are PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300A and Ring Bus for the Arc 64EU. Display outputs are none for the MI300A and motherboard dependent for the Arc 64EU.

API support: the MI300A lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The Arc 64EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are 2023-12-05 for the MI300A and 2024-10-23 for the Arc 64EU. The Arc 64EU's production status is active, while the MI300A's is not recorded. Predecessors are Radeon Instinct for the MI300A and HD Graphics for the Arc 64EU. Neither has a successor listed, and neither has a launch MSRP in the database.