AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Instinct MI300A and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350?

A: The MI300A uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Intel part uses Generation 12.5 architecture on Intel's 10 nm process. The MI300A is built with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, whereas the Max 1350 packs 100,000 million transistors on a larger 1280 mm² die.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Max 1350 has 96 GB of HBM2e memory with the same 8192-bit bus width but lower 2.46 TB/s bandwidth. The MI300A's memory clock runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the Intel card runs at 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has higher compute throughput?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 and a texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s. The Max 1350 delivers 44.44 TFLOPS FP32 and 1,388.8 GTexel/s. The AMD part leads in raw FP32 and texture throughput.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Max 1350 has a TDP of 450 W and a suggested PSU of 850 W. The Intel card draws less power.

Q: Do these cards support standard graphics APIs?

A: The MI300A reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Max 1350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan not listed.

Q: What is the release timeline?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 was released on 2023-01-09 and is marked as Active in production. The AMD Instinct MI300A was released on 2023-12-05, with production status not listed.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300A and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 represent two divergent approaches to data center acceleration. The MI300A is built on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The Intel Max 1350 uses Intel's 10 nm process with 100,000 million transistors spread across a larger 1280 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 78.1 million per mm².

The architecture generation differs significantly. AMD uses CDNA 3.0, its compute-optimized lineage, while Intel employs Generation 12.5, derived from the Xe architecture family. This is visible in the feature sets. The MI300A lists no RT cores and reports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. The Max 1350 includes 112 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The presence of RT hardware on the Intel part suggests a broader feature set, even though both cards are designed for compute workloads rather than graphics output.

Memory architecture also diverges. The MI300A uses HBM3 with 128 GB capacity, while the Max 1350 uses HBM2e with 96 GB. Both use an 8192-bit bus, but the MI300A's newer memory type and higher clock yield significantly more bandwidth. Clock speeds differ as well: the MI300A runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Max 1350 runs at 750 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost.

Shading resources are close but not identical. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Max 1350 has 14,336 shading units, 896 TMUs, and also 0 ROPs. Neither card has pixel output, which is expected for accelerators without display outputs. The RT core count on the Intel part is the only major functional difference in the compute block.

Both cards use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface and an OAM Module slot width. Neither has display outputs. The MI300A lists no power connectors, while the Max 1350's power connector field is null. The production status differs: the Max 1350 is Active, while the MI300A's status is not listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct benchmark scores are not available in the recorded data for either card. Both show an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile versus all GPUs of 50. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, meaning no comparative runs have been logged in the database for this pairing.

The specification data, however, provides a clear quantitative comparison. In FP32 compute, the MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS against the Max 1350's 44.44 TFLOPS. That is a 37.9% lead for the AMD part in raw single-precision throughput. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 1,915.2 GTexel/s for the MI300A versus 1,388.8 GTexel/s for the Max 1350, a 37.9% advantage.

Memory bandwidth is the largest gap. The MI300A's 5.32 TB/s is more than double the Max 1350's 2.46 TB/s, a 116.3% advantage. This difference comes from the HBM3 versus HBM2e memory types and the higher effective clock. Capacity also favors AMD: 128 GB versus 96 GB, a 33.3% advantage.

Clock speeds favor AMD as well. The MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz versus 1550 MHz for the Intel card. Base clocks are 1000 MHz and 750 MHz respectively. The MI300A also has more shading units: 14,592 versus 14,336, a 1.8% edge. TMU counts are similarly close: 912 versus 896.

The Intel part has specific advantages in the feature set. It includes 112 RT cores that the MI300A lacks entirely. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the AMD card reports no API support. Power consumption favors Intel: 450 W TDP versus 750 W, and the suggested PSU is 850 W versus 1150 W.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The manufacturing process differs: 5 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. Transistor counts differ: 153,000 million versus 100,000 million. Die size differs: 1017 mm² versus 1280 mm². Transistor density differs: 150.4 million per mm² versus 78.1 million per mm².

Clock specifications differ on all three axes. Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 750 MHz. Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 1550 MHz. Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity differs: 128 GB versus 96 GB. Memory type differs: HBM3 versus HBM2e. Bandwidth differs: 5.32 TB/s versus 2.46 TB/s. Bus width is the same at 8192 bit.

Compute resources differ slightly. Shading units: 14,592 versus 14,336. TMUs: 912 versus 896. ROPs are the same at 0. RT cores: not listed for AMD, 112 for Intel. Pixel rate is the same at 0 MPixel/s. Texture rate differs: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 1,388.8 GTexel/s. FP32 differs: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 44.44 TFLOPS. FP16 is not listed for AMD but is 44.44 TFLOPS (1:1) for Intel.

Power and cooling differ. TDP: 750 W versus 450 W. Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus 850 W. Power connectors: None for AMD, null for Intel. Both use OAM Module slot width and PCIe 5.0 x16.

API support differs. DirectX: N/A for AMD, 12 (12_1) for Intel. OpenGL: N/A for AMD, 4.6 for Intel. Vulkan: N/A for AMD, not listed for Intel.

Release dates differ: 2023-12-05 for AMD, 2023-01-09 for Intel. Production status: not listed for AMD, Active for Intel. Predecessor: Radeon Instinct for AMD, null for Intel. Successor: null for AMD, H3C Graphics for Intel.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Instinct MI300A leads in every raw compute and memory metric: FP32, texture rate, memory bandwidth, memory capacity, and clock speeds. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth position it as the higher-throughput accelerator. The 37.9% advantage in FP32 and 116.3% advantage in bandwidth are substantial margins.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 counters with a lower power envelope: 450 W TDP versus 750 W, and a suggested PSU of 850 W versus 1150 W. It also brings features the AMD card lacks: 112 RT cores, DirectX 12 (12_1) support, and OpenGL 4.6 support. Its production status is Active, while the AMD card's status is not listed.

The choice depends on workload requirements. For raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, the MI300A is the stronger part. For workloads requiring graphics API support, ray tracing hardware, or lower power draw, the Max 1350 has the advantage. The Max 1350's earlier release date and active production status may matter for procurement cycles.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A wins in compute-intensive scenarios. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 outperforms the Max 1350's 44.44 TFLOPS by 37.9%. The texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 1,388.8 GTexel/s gives it a similar edge in texture-heavy workloads. The 128 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is more than double the Max 1350's 2.46 TB/s, making the MI300A the better fit for memory-bound applications such as large model inference or training. The 2100 MHz boost clock and 1000 MHz base clock both exceed the Intel card's 1550 MHz and 750 MHz, which contributes to its higher throughput.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins in power-constrained environments. Its 450 W TDP is 40% lower than the MI300A's 750 W, and the suggested PSU of 850 W versus 1150 W reduces system power requirements. The inclusion of 112 RT cores gives it a hardware feature the MI300A does not have, which may matter for workloads that can use ray tracing acceleration. DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support mean it can run graphics API workloads that the MI300A cannot, since the AMD card reports N/A for all three major APIs.

The Intel card also wins on availability status. It is listed as Active in production, while the MI300A's production status is not recorded. The Max 1350's earlier release date of 2023-01-09 versus 2023-12-05 means it has been on the market longer. The 96 GB HBM2e memory, while smaller and slower than the MI300A's HBM3, is still substantial. The 2.46 TB/s bandwidth and 44.44 TFLOPS FP32 are respectable figures for a 450 W part.