AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

The AMD Instinct MI300A and Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, as the database records show a 750 W OAM module designed for compute workloads against a 6 W integrated graphics solution for portable devices. The recorded data includes no shared benchmark results, no head-to-head wins for either part, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of zero. The comparison therefore hinges on architectural specifications, memory subsystems, and the intended roles each part serves in the broader hardware landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products, and the win counts for both are zero. The AMD Instinct MI300A has an empty benchmark array, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile also has no recorded benchmark results. This absence of direct measurement data means the comparison must rely on the raw specification fields, which reveal a chasm in computational capacity. The AMD part delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, whereas the Intel integrated solution reaches 384.0 GFLOPS, a ratio of roughly 159.6 to 1 in favor of the Instinct module. Texture rate differs similarly, with the AMD chip achieving 1,915.2 GTexel/s against the Intel part’s 12.00 GTexel/s, about 159.6 times higher. Pixel rate shows an even starker contrast: the AMD accelerator reports 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the Intel graphics block outputs 4.000 GPixel/s. The memory bandwidth comparison is equally lopsided, with 5.32 TB/s on the Instinct versus system-dependent bandwidth on the Intel product.

Where Each One Wins

Despite the lack of benchmark scores, the specification data indicates clear domains where each part would dominate. The AMD Instinct MI300A wins in every raw compute metric: FP32 throughput, texture rate, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. Its 128 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus width provides 5.32 TB/s, which the Intel part cannot approach since it uses system shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the host platform. The AMD module also leads in shading units, with 14,592 versus 192, and texture mapping units, 912 versus 12. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in areas tied to its role as an integrated graphics processor: it has a 4 ROPs count that enables pixel output, it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its power draw is 6 W compared to 750 W. The Intel part also has a production status of "Active," while the AMD module’s status is not recorded. For portable devices, the Intel IGP provides display outputs and uses a Ring Bus interface, whereas the AMD accelerator has no display outputs and connects via PCIe 5.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A records 61.29 TFLOPS in FP32, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile records 384.0 GFLOPS. The AMD part delivers approximately 159.6 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory, with system shared type, bus width, and bandwidth dependent on the host.

Q: Do these parts support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part records "N/A" for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no standard graphics API support.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W and no suggested PSU recorded.

Q: Which product has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a pixel rate of 4.000 GPixel/s, while the AMD Instinct MI300A has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s due to having zero ROPs.

Q: What are the clock speeds?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, with memory clock at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz, with system shared memory clock.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every recorded field. The AMD Instinct MI300A uses a 5 nm process node from TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process from Intel, with transistor count and die size listed as "unknown" and density not recorded. The AMD chip is named Aqua Vanjaram with CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Intel chip is Twin Lake with Xe-LP architecture. The AMD part has 14,592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, compared to 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs on the Intel part. The AMD module has a boost clock of 2100 MHz versus 1000 MHz on the Intel IGP. Memory differs fundamentally: 128 GB HBM3 with 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth versus system shared memory. The AMD part has a TDP of 750 W, slot width of OAM Module, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the Intel part has a TDP of 6 W, slot width of IGP, and no power connector or PSU data. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 on AMD and Ring Bus on Intel. Display outputs are "No outputs" for AMD and "Portable Device Dependent" for Intel. API support is "N/A" across the board for AMD, while Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ, with AMD on 2023-12-05 and Intel on 2024-12-31. The AMD part has a predecessor of Radeon Instinct, while Intel has no predecessor recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300A is built on CDNA 3.0, AMD’s compute-focused architecture, which prioritizes raw FP32 and texture throughput over graphics rendering. The absence of ROPs and the zero pixel rate confirm that this accelerator is not designed for display output or traditional rasterization. The 153,000 million transistor count on a 1017 mm² die at 5 nm shows a dense, compute-oriented design. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses Xe-LP, Intel’s low-power graphics architecture, which integrates rendering capabilities with 4 ROPs and a 4.000 GPixel/s pixel rate. The Xe-LP design supports modern graphics APIs, including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and operates at a 6 W TDP. The AMD part has 912 TMUs versus 12 on the Intel part, and its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s dwarfs the Intel part’s 12.00 GTexel/s. The memory architecture also differs fundamentally: HBM3 with a dedicated 8192-bit interface versus system shared memory that relies on the host platform’s bandwidth. The AMD module has no tensor core or RT core data recorded, and neither does the Intel part, but the compute-oriented CDNA 3.0 versus graphics-oriented Xe-LP split is clear from the shading unit counts and pixel output capabilities. The process nodes, 5 nm TSMC versus 10 nm Intel, further separate the design philosophies, with the former enabling higher transistor density and the latter prioritizing lower power integration.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Instinct MI300A is intended for high-performance compute workloads, delivering 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 128 GB of HBM3 capacity. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile serves as an integrated graphics solution for portable devices, with 384.0 GFLOPS FP32, system shared memory, and a 6 W power envelope. The AMD part’s zero ROPs and no display outputs mean it cannot render to a screen, while the Intel part’s 4 ROPs and portable-device-dependent outputs enable display functionality. The 2100 MHz boost clock on AMD versus 1000 MHz on Intel, the 14,592 versus 192 shading units, and the 912 versus 12 TMUs all point to the same conclusion: the AMD module is a compute accelerator, and the Intel IGP is a graphics processor. The release dates show the AMD part launched on 2023-12-05, while the Intel part followed on 2024-12-31. The production status of the Intel part is "Active," while the AMD part’s status is not recorded. The absence of benchmark scores and head-to-head data means the verdict rests entirely on specifications, which show no overlap in intended use. The AMD Instinct MI300A is for servers and accelerators requiring massive parallel throughput, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is for low-power mobile systems needing basic graphics output. The 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU for AMD contrast sharply with the 6 W TDP for Intel, reinforcing that these parts serve mutually exclusive markets. The database records no common ground in performance metrics, so the choice between them depends entirely on the workload: compute-heavy data center tasks versus integrated graphics for everyday portable use.