AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300A and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 are both OAM module accelerators with 128 GB of memory, but they are engineered around fundamentally different design philosophies. The MI300A uses a 5 nm TSMC process with a 1017 mm² die, while the Max 1550 uses Intel's 10 nm process on a larger 1280 mm² package. The data shows two distinct approaches to high-bandwidth compute, and the choice between them depends on which architectural trade-offs match the intended workload.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A holds the advantage in raw floating-point throughput and memory bandwidth. Its FP32 performance is recorded at 61.29 TFLOPS, which is 8.86 TFLOPS higher than the Intel part's 52.43 TFLOPS. The MI300A also delivers a texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s, outpacing the Max 1550's 1,638.4 GTexel/s by approximately 17%. Memory bandwidth follows the same pattern: the MI300A reaches 5.32 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3 interface, compared to 3.28 TB/s for the Max 1550's HBM2e implementation on the same bus width. Applications that are sensitive to memory throughput, such as large matrix operations or data movement across the accelerator, will see a measurable advantage on the AMD part.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 counters with a higher shading unit count and the presence of dedicated ray tracing hardware. The Intel accelerator has 16,384 shading units versus 14,592 on the MI300A, a difference of 1,792 units. It also includes 128 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the MI300A's specification sheet. The Max 1550's FP16 performance is explicitly listed at 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1), indicating a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas the MI300A does not list an FP16 figure in the database. For workloads that require FP16 compute or ray tracing acceleration, the Intel part is the only option with recorded support.

Clock speeds also differ. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the Max 1550 runs at 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. The AMD part's higher boost clock contributes directly to its FP32 and texture rate advantages. Power consumption is lower on the Intel side at 600 W TDP versus 750 W for the MI300A, and the suggested PSU is correspondingly lower at 1000 W versus 1150 W.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Instinct MI300A is the stronger choice for FP32-heavy compute and memory-bandwidth-bound tasks. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 output, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and higher texture rate give it a clear edge in general-purpose GPU compute and high-throughput data processing. The 2100 MHz boost clock and larger transistor count of 153,000 million on a smaller 5 nm node indicate a more densely packed design that extracts more performance per clock.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is the pick when FP16 compute or ray tracing is required. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP16 figure is explicitly recorded, and the 128 ray tracing cores are unique to this part. The higher shading unit count of 16,384 also suggests better occupancy for shader-bound workloads, even though the overall FP32 throughput is lower. The Intel part runs cooler in terms of TDP, at 600 W versus 750 W, which could simplify power delivery in dense multi-accelerator systems.

Neither accelerator has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rival comparisons in the database, so both sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs. The lack of head-to-head benchmark results means the decision rests entirely on the architectural and specification differences. The MI300A wins on peak compute and memory speed; the Max 1550 wins on feature breadth with ray tracing and FP16 support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two accelerators, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. The comparison must therefore be built from the specification-level performance indicators.

The most significant gap is in FP32 throughput. The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS against the Max 1550's 52.43 TFLOPS, a difference of 8.86 TFLOPS or roughly 17% in favor of AMD. Texture rate follows the same trend: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 1,638.4 GTexel/s, a 276.8 GTexel/s gap that again favors the MI300A by about 17%.

Memory bandwidth is where the AMD part extends its lead further. The MI300A's 5.32 TB/s is 2.04 TB/s higher than the Max 1550's 3.28 TB/s, a 62% advantage. Both use an 8192-bit bus, so the difference comes entirely from memory type and effective data rate. The MI300A uses HBM3 at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed; the Max 1550 uses HBM2e at 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective speed. The HBM3 interface moves data at a substantially higher rate per pin.

Clock speeds favor AMD as well. The MI300A's 2100 MHz boost clock is 500 MHz higher than the Max 1550's 1600 MHz boost. Base clocks are closer, at 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz, but the boost differential is what matters for sustained peak performance.

The Intel part wins on shading unit count and feature set. Its 16,384 shading units exceed the MI300A's 14,592 by 1,792 units. The Max 1550 also has 128 ray tracing cores, while the MI300A lists none. FP16 is recorded at 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) for Intel, with no equivalent entry for AMD.

Pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s for both, and neither has display outputs, so those fields offer no differentiation.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A, with 61.29 TFLOPS versus 52.43 TFLOPS for the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550.

Q: Do both cards use the same memory type?

A: No. The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3, while the Max 1550 uses 128 GB of HBM2e. Both have an 8192-bit bus width, but the MI300A's bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 3.28 TB/s for the Intel part.

Q: Does the Intel Max 1550 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. It includes 128 ray tracing cores. The AMD MI300A has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the FP16 performance of the Intel Max 1550?

A: 52.43 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. The MI300A does not have an FP16 figure recorded.

Q: Which accelerator has a higher TDP?

A: The AMD MI300A, at 750 W. The Intel Max 1550 is rated at 600 W, and its suggested PSU is 1000 W versus 1150 W for the AMD part.

Q: Are there any recorded benchmark scores for either accelerator?

A: No. Both have an average benchmark score of 0 and no head-to-head benchmark entries in the database.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with the chip designated as Aqua Vanjaram. It packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Max 1550 uses Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture on a 10 nm process, with the Ponte Vecchio chip. Its transistor count is 100,000 million across a 1280 mm² die, giving a density of 78.1M per mm². The AMD part is therefore more than twice as dense in terms of transistors per square millimeter.

The MI300A belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation with a predecessor of Radeon Instinct. The Max 1550 is part of the Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) generation and has a successor listed as H3C Graphics. The Intel part's production status is Active, while the MI300A does not have a production status recorded.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The MI300A uses HBM3 with a clock of 1300 MHz and 5.2 Gbps effective speed, while the Max 1550 uses HBM2e at 1600 MHz and 3.2 Gbps effective. Both share the 8192-bit bus width and 128 GB capacity, but the memory technology gap explains the bandwidth difference.

The MI300A has 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units, with no ray tracing cores. The Max 1550 has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 128 ray tracing cores. Neither has ROPs recorded; both show 0.

API support differs as well. The MI300A lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, meaning it is not a graphics-oriented part. The Max 1550 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan not recorded. Both have no display outputs, confirming their compute-only role.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators diverge on nearly every measurable specification except memory capacity, bus width, and slot width.

• Process node: 5 nm (TSMC) for the MI300A versus 10 nm (Intel) for the Max 1550.
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus 100,000 million.
• Die size: 1017 mm² versus 1280 mm².
• Transistor density: 150.4M / mm² versus 78.1M / mm².
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz.
• Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 1600 MHz.
• Memory type: HBM3 versus HBM2e.
• Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1600 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 3.28 TB/s.
• Shading units: 14,592 versus 16,384.
• TMUs: 912 versus 1,024.
• Ray tracing cores: none versus 128.
• FP32: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 52.43 TFLOPS.
• FP16: not recorded versus 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1).
• Texture rate: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 1,638.4 GTexel/s.
• TDP: 750 W versus 600 W.
• Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus 1000 W.
• Power connectors: None for the MI300A, not recorded for the Max 1550.
• API support: N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan on the MI300A; DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 on the Max 1550.
• Release date: 2023-12-05 for the MI300A versus 2023-01-09 for the Max 1550.
• Production status: not recorded versus Active.
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct for the MI300A, none for the Max 1550.
• Successor: none for the MI300A, H3C Graphics for the Max 1550.

Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 as the bus interface, are OAM Modules, and have no display outputs. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.