AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no performance benchmark entries for either accelerator. Both the AMD Instinct MI300A and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 have empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and identical percentile rankings at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Consequently, there are no direct numerical comparisons, no win counts, and no delta percentages to report from head-to-head testing. The absence of measured scores means the database cannot establish a performance hierarchy between these two accelerators on any workload.

What can be quantified from the specification data is the theoretical compute ceiling. The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at roughly 2.76 times the FP32 rate of the Intel part, based solely on the recorded FP32 figures. The texture rate follows a similar pattern: 1,915.2 GTexel/s for the MI300A versus 694.4 GTexel/s for the Intel Max 1100, a ratio of approximately 2.76 as well. Both parts report a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, indicating they are not designed for traditional rasterized graphics output.

Memory bandwidth shows an even wider gap. The MI300A records 5.32 TB/s from its HBM3 stack, while the Intel Max 1100 records 1.23 TB/s from HBM2e. The AMD part therefore has roughly 4.33 times the memory bandwidth. Both use an 8192-bit memory bus, so the entire bandwidth difference comes from the memory technology and its effective data rate. The MI300A's memory runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the Intel part runs at 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective.

The FP16 comparison is asymmetric in the data. The MI300A lists no FP16 figure at all, while the Intel Max 1100 lists 22.22 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), identical to its FP32 rate. Without a recorded FP16 value for the AMD part, no direct FP16 ratio can be established. The data simply shows the Intel part has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, which is a meaningful detail for mixed-precision workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different foundries and process nodes. The AMD Instinct MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip, based on Generation 12.5 architecture, fabricated by Intel on a 10 nm process. The process node difference is substantial: 5 nm versus 10 nm.

Transistor counts also differ. The MI300A integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel Max 1100 integrates 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, yielding 78.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD part packs more transistors on a smaller die, while the Intel part uses a larger die with fewer transistors. The density ratio favors the AMD chip by roughly 1.93 times.

Shading unit counts diverge sharply. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The Intel Max 1100 has 7,168 shading units, 448 TMUs, and zero ROPs. The AMD part has about 2.04 times the shading units and 2.04 times the TMUs. The Intel part additionally records 56 ray tracing cores, while the MI300A lists no RT cores. Neither part lists tensor cores.

Memory configurations differ in both capacity and type. The MI300A carries 128 GB of HBM3, while the Intel Max 1100 carries 48 GB of HBM2e. Both use an 8192-bit bus, but the bandwidth figures diverge as noted: 5.32 TB/s versus 1.23 TB/s. The AMD part has roughly 2.67 times the memory capacity and 4.33 times the bandwidth.

Clock behavior differs on the boost side. The MI300A has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 2100 MHz boost clock. The Intel Max 1100 has the same 1000 MHz base clock but a 1550 MHz boost clock. Base clocks match exactly, while the AMD boost clock is 550 MHz higher.

Power and physical specifications show stark contrasts. The MI300A has a 750 W TDP, requires a 1150 W suggested PSU, uses an OAM Module slot width, and lists no power connectors. The Intel Max 1100 has a 300 W TDP, requires a 700 W suggested PSU, uses a dual-slot form factor, and lists a single 12-pin power connector. The Intel part is also physically defined by a 267 mm length (10.5 inches), while the AMD part has no recorded dimensions. The MI300A's TDP is 2.5 times that of the Intel part, and its suggested PSU is 1.64 times higher.

API support differs as well. The Intel Max 1100 records DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support, with no Vulkan entry. The MI300A records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Both parts list no display outputs. The Intel part has an active production status, while the AMD part has no recorded production status. Release dates differ by roughly 11 months: the Intel part launched on 2023-01-09, and the AMD part launched on 2023-12-05.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded specification data, the AMD Instinct MI300A holds advantages in raw compute throughput, texture processing, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and clock ceiling. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 rate, 1,915.2 GTexel/s texture rate, 128 GB HBM3 capacity, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 2100 MHz boost clock all exceed the corresponding Intel figures. The 5 nm TSMC process and higher transistor density (150.4M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm²) indicate a more tightly packed design.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 holds advantages in power efficiency as recorded, with a 300 W TDP versus 750 W, and a lower suggested PSU at 700 W versus 1150 W. Its dual-slot form factor and single 12-pin power connector make it physically more conventional than the OAM Module MI300A. The Intel part also records 56 ray tracing cores, a feature the AMD part does not list, along with DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6 API support, which the MI300A lists as N/A. The Intel part has an active production status, while the AMD part has no recorded status.

The FP16 situation favors the Intel part in terms of data completeness: it records 22.22 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the AMD part has no FP16 entry. For workloads where FP16 throughput is a deciding factor, the database only has a figure for the Intel accelerator.

Neither part has display outputs, and neither has a pixel rate above 0 MPixel/s, so neither is positioned for graphics output workloads. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 as the bus interface. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database, so no price-based comparison is possible.

The Verdict

The data points to different deployment profiles for the two accelerators. The AMD Instinct MI300A is the higher-throughput part by every recorded compute and memory metric: 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, 1,915.2 GTexel/s, 128 GB HBM3, 5.32 TB/s, 2100 MHz boost. It also carries a 750 W TDP and an OAM Module form factor, indicating a system-level integration path rather than a standalone card.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is the lower-power, more conventional part: 300 W TDP, dual-slot, single 12-pin connector, 267 mm length, active production status, and a 700 W suggested PSU. Its compute figures are lower across the board, but its memory and compute ratios are internally consistent at 22.22 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. Its 56 RT cores and API support for DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6 are unique in this comparison.

For workloads that prioritize FP32 throughput, texture rate, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth, the MI300A is the clear choice based on recorded specifications. For deployments constrained by power draw, physical slot format, or API compatibility, the Intel Max 1100 is the only option that fits those constraints. The absence of benchmark scores means no verdict can be rendered on real-world application performance. The verdict is therefore a specification-level one: the MI300A dominates in raw capacity and throughput, while the Intel part dominates in power envelope, physical integration flexibility, and API coverage.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A records 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 22.22 TFLOPS for the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100.

Q: How much memory does each accelerator have?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

A: The MI300A records 5.32 TB/s, and the Intel Max 1100 records 1.23 TB/s. Both use an 8192-bit memory bus.

Q: Which part has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 records 56 ray tracing cores, while the AMD Instinct MI300A lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A has a 750 W TDP, and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has a 300 W TDP. The suggested PSU figures are 1150 W and 700 W, respectively.

Q: Do either of these accelerators support display outputs?

A: No. Both the AMD Instinct MI300A and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 list no display outputs, and both record a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Instinct MI300A and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100:

• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram versus Ponte Vecchio
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 versus Generation 12.5
• Process node: 5 nm (TSMC) versus 10 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus 100,000 million
• Die size: 1017 mm² versus 1280 mm²
• Transistor density: 150.4M / mm² versus 78.1M / mm²
• Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 1550 MHz
• Memory clock: 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective versus 600 MHz, 1200 Mbps effective
• Memory size: 128 GB versus 48 GB
• Memory type: HBM3 versus HBM2e
• Memory bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 1.23 TB/s
• Shading units: 14,592 versus 7,168
• TMUs: 912 versus 448
• Ray tracing cores: none listed versus 56
• Texture rate: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS
• FP16: none listed versus 22.22 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 750 W versus 300 W
• Slot width: OAM Module versus Dual-slot
• Power connectors: None versus 1x 12-pin
• Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus 700 W
• Length: not recorded versus 267 mm (10.5 inches)
• APIs: N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan versus DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan not recorded
• Production status: not recorded versus Active
• Release date: 2023-12-05 versus 2023-01-09
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus none recorded
• Successor: none recorded versus H3C Graphics

Fields that match include the 1000 MHz base clock, the 8192-bit memory bus width, 0 ROPs, 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, no display outputs, and no recorded launch MSRP.