AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc Pro B70 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI300A versus the Intel Arc Pro B70. Both parts show zero wins in the database’s comparison fields, and neither has any individual benchmark scores listed. The absence of measured performance data means any direct performance delta cannot be quantified from the available records. What can be compared are the architectural and specification differences, which are substantial and define entirely different use cases.

The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers a peak FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Pro B70 reaches 22.94 TFLOPS. That is a 2.67x advantage for the AMD part in raw single-precision compute, a gap that reflects the MI300A’s purpose as a high-density compute accelerator. Conversely, the Intel part counters with a texture rate of 716.8 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 358.4 GPixel/s, whereas the MI300A’s pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s and its texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s. The Intel card is a rasterization-capable GPU with 128 ROPs, while the AMD accelerator has zero ROPs, meaning it cannot perform traditional display output or pixel processing.

Memory bandwidth further separates the two. The MI300A offers 5.32 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3 interface, versus 608.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR6 bus on the Arc Pro B70. That is an 8.75x bandwidth advantage for the AMD part. The Intel card does have a higher memory clock at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) compared to the MI300A’s 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), but the vastly wider bus on the AMD accelerator more than compensates. The MI300A also holds a 4x capacity lead with 128 GB versus 32 GB.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Intel Arc Pro B70 runs at a base of 2280 MHz and boosts to 2800 MHz, while the MI300A operates at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The Intel part’s higher clocks contribute to its greater pixel throughput but do not close the raw compute gap. In terms of shading units, the MI300A has 14,592 versus 4,096 on the Intel card, a 3.56x difference. Texture mapping units stand at 912 versus 256, a 3.56x lead as well.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A records 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.67x the 22.94 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B70.

Q: Can the AMD MI300A output video to displays?

A: No. The MI300A has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, while the Intel Arc Pro B70 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs with a 358.4 GPixel/s pixel rate.

Q: How do memory bandwidth and capacity compare?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth over an 8192-bit bus. The Arc Pro B70 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 with 608.0 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus. The AMD part leads by 8.75x in bandwidth and 4x in capacity.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the Arc Pro B70 has a TDP of 230 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which GPU supports modern graphics APIs?

A: Only the Intel Arc Pro B70 lists API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the physical form factors?

A: The MI300A is an OAM module with no power connectors and no length/height/width recorded. The Arc Pro B70 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 39 mm in width, with a single 8-pin power connector.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300A is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, specifically designed for compute acceleration rather than graphics rendering. Its chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, uses a 5 nm process from TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 150.4M per mm². The architecture lacks dedicated RT cores and ROPs, and it exposes no graphics API support, confirming its role as a data-center compute processor.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage generation for the Pro Series. Its chip is designated BMG-G31, also on a 5 nm TSMC process, but with a smaller die at 368 mm². Transistor count is listed as unknown. This architecture includes 32 RT cores and 128 ROPs, enabling hardware ray tracing and full rasterization. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a functional graphics card.

The MI300A’s lack of display outputs and graphics APIs aligns with its OAM module form factor, which is intended for server installations where video output is unnecessary. The Arc Pro B70’s dual-slot design and display connectivity target workstation and professional visualization tasks. The MI300A’s 8192-bit memory bus is a hallmark of HBM3 integration, while the Arc Pro B70’s 256-bit bus with GDDR6 is typical for a consumer-prosumer hybrid.

The Intel part includes FP16 support at 45.88 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which doubles its FP32 rate. The MI300A does not list an FP16 figure in the database. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces, but the MI300A has no power connectors, relying on the OAM carrier for power delivery, whereas the Arc Pro B70 uses a single 8-pin connector.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification. Process node is identical: both use 5 nm TSMC. But the MI300A has 153,000 million transistors versus an unknown count for the Arc Pro B70. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 368 mm². Base clocks are 1000 MHz versus 2280 MHz, and boost clocks are 2100 MHz versus 2800 MHz. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz versus 2375 MHz.

Memory capacity: 128 GB HBM3 versus 32 GB GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 608.0 GB/s. Shading units: 14,592 versus 4,096. TMUs: 912 versus 256. ROPs: 0 versus 128. RT cores: not listed versus 32. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 358.4 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 716.8 GTexel/s.

FP32: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 22.94 TFLOPS. FP16: not listed versus 45.88 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 750 W versus 230 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus Dual-slot. Power connectors: None versus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus 550 W. Display outputs: none versus 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. APIs: all N/A versus DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. Dimensions: not recorded versus 267 mm x 110 mm x 39 mm.

Release dates also differ: the MI300A launched on 2023-12-05, while the Arc Pro B70 is dated 2026-03-25. The MI300A’s predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the Intel part has no predecessor. The MI300A has no launch MSRP recorded, while the Arc Pro B70 has a launch MSRP of 949 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A wins decisively in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, memory capacity, and shading unit count. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth make it suitable for high-performance computing workloads such as scientific simulation, AI training, and large-scale data processing. The 128 GB HBM3 pool allows massive datasets to reside on-device, reducing host-device transfers. Its 1,915.2 GTexel/s texture rate indicates strong compute-side texturing capability, though the absence of ROPs means it cannot generate display frames.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 wins in graphics-specific features: it has 128 ROPs, 32 RT cores, a 358.4 GPixel/s pixel rate, and full display outputs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling modern gaming and professional rendering applications. Its higher clock speeds (2800 MHz boost) and lower TDP (230 W) make it more practical for workstation deployments where power and cooling are constrained. The 32 GB GDDR6 memory is ample for professional visualization, video editing, and CAD workloads, and the dual-slot form factor fits standard PCIe slots.

The MI300A’s OAM module form factor and lack of power connectors indicate it is designed for high-density server racks, not desktop or workstation towers. The Arc Pro B70’s 267 mm length and dual-slot profile with an 8-pin connector make it a drop-in card for conventional systems. The Intel part also offers FP16 at 45.88 TFLOPS, which could benefit workloads that use mixed precision, while the MI300A’s FP16 is not recorded.

The Verdict

The data shows two fundamentally different products with no overlapping use cases. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a compute accelerator with no graphics capability, delivering 2.67x the FP32 throughput, 8.75x the memory bandwidth, and 4x the memory capacity of the Intel Arc Pro B70. Its 750 W TDP and OAM form factor target data-center deployments where maximum compute density is paramount. The absence of display outputs and graphics APIs confirms it is not a GPU in the traditional rendering sense.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 is a professional graphics card with a 230 W TDP, dual-slot cooling, display outputs, and full API support. Its 22.94 TFLOPS FP32 and 608.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest compared to the MI300A, but it provides hardware ray tracing, 128 ROPs, and a 358.4 GPixel/s pixel rate, making it suitable for visualization, content creation, and any workload requiring rasterization.

For compute-intensive tasks where raw FP32 and memory bandwidth dominate, the MI300A is the clear choice based on the recorded specifications. For graphics rendering, display output, or any DirectX/Vulkan workload, the Arc Pro B70 is the only option between the two, as the MI300A cannot perform these functions at all. The MI300A’s larger die (1017 mm² versus 368 mm²) and higher transistor count reflect its broader compute logic, while the Arc Pro B70’s higher clocks and lower power draw reflect its efficiency-oriented design. The launch MSRP of 949 USD for the Arc Pro B70 is the only price data available, and the MI300A has no recorded launch MSRP. Buyers should select based on whether the workload requires graphics output or pure compute acceleration, as neither part can substitute for the other.