AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single benchmark result for the AMD Instinct MI300X, the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it scored 317,994 points. The Intel Arc A310E has no benchmark entries in the database, so a direct numerical comparison between these two specific cards is not possible from the available measurements. Instead, the MI300X's standing can be assessed against its nearest rivals, which provides context for its performance level.

The MI300X's score places it at the 100th percentile against all GPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms virtually every other recorded graphics processor. Compared to its nearest rivals, the MI300X trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5%, as the H200 NVL records an average score of 334,891. Similarly, the NVIDIA B200 sits ahead with a score of 345,482, which is 8% higher than the MI300X's result. On the other side of the comparison, the MI300X leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5%, with the L40S averaging 295,763 points. It also surpasses the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%, as that card scores 287,237 on average.

These deltas indicate that the MI300X operates in the upper echelon of accelerator performance, close to the top-tier data center parts from NVIDIA but not the absolute leader. The margin between the MI300X and the B200 is the largest gap among the rival group, while the difference against the H200 NVL is relatively small. Since the Arc A310E has no recorded benchmark scores, its performance cannot be quantified, and no head-to-head wins can be assigned to either product based on the database entries. The wins counter for both items stands at zero.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300X and the Intel Arc A310E are fundamentally different products with distinct design goals. The MI300X is built on TSMC's 5 nm process node and uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, with the chip designated as Aqua Vanjaram. It packs 153,000 million transistors onto a die size of 1017 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Arc A310E, by contrast, uses TSMC's 6 nm node and the Xe-HPG architecture, with the DG2-128 chip. Its transistor count is 7,200 million on a 157 mm² die, for a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The MI300X's transistor budget is over twenty times larger, reflecting its role as a massive accelerator.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Arc A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, meaning it does not dynamically adjust its frequency. Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The MI300X offers roughly 43 times the memory capacity and over 42 times the bandwidth.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, yielding a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. Its FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is also 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. Its texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s. The FP32 figure is 3.072 TFLOPS, while FP16 reaches 6.144 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The MI300X delivers over 26 times the FP32 performance and over 13 times the FP16 performance.

Power and physical design also reflect their different purposes. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and uses an OAM Module slot width, with no power connectors listed and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. It has no display outputs. The Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W, fits in a single-slot design, also has no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. It offers four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The MI300X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Arc A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Arc A310E measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

API support is another differentiator. The MI300X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A. The Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X is an accelerator without graphics output or consumer API support, while the Arc A310E is a full graphics card with modern API compatibility.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows that the MI300X wins in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and capacity. Its FP32 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS and texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s indicate that it is designed for heavy parallel workloads, such as large-scale matrix operations and scientific computing. The 192 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth allows it to handle massive datasets without frequent host transfers. Its 100th percentile ranking against all GPUs confirms that it sits at the top of the performance distribution. The MI300X also has a higher boost clock of 2100 MHz compared to the Arc A310E's 2000 MHz, though the latter's base clock is higher at 2000 MHz versus 1000 MHz.

The Arc A310E wins in specific areas that the MI300X lacks entirely. It has 16 ROPs, which enable a pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s, while the MI300X has no ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Arc A310E includes 6 ray tracing cores, which the MI300X does not list. It also supports a full set of graphics APIs, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI300X reports N/A for all three. The Arc A310E provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, meaning it can drive displays directly, while the MI300X has no outputs. The Arc A310E's smaller footprint, 168 mm length and 75 W TDP, makes it suitable for embedded or compact systems, while the MI300X's OAM module form factor targets server racks.

The Arc A310E's FP16 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS is exactly double its FP32 figure, indicating a 2:1 ratio that can accelerate certain mixed-precision workloads. The MI300X maintains a 1:1 ratio between FP16 and FP32, both at 81.72 TFLOPS, which suggests it treats both precisions equally. In terms of power efficiency, the Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 within a 75 W TDP, while the MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS within 750 W. The per-watt figures are not directly comparable given the different architectures and use cases, but the data shows the Arc A310E is far more modest in absolute consumption.

The Arc A310E's production status is listed as end-of-life, with a successor named Battlemage. The MI300X has no production status listed, but its release date of December 5, 2023, and predecessor of Radeon Instinct place it in the current Instinct (MIx) generation. The Arc A310E was released on March 31, 2024, and its predecessor is Xe Graphics. These release dates show the MI300X came to market earlier, but neither product's timeline affects the recorded benchmark outcomes.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Instinct MI300X perform in the only recorded benchmark?

A: The MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL, which places it at the 100th percentile against all GPUs in the database.

Q: What rivals are closest to the MI300X in average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA B200 leads with 345,482, the H200 NVL follows at 334,891, the L40S scores 295,763, and the RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287,237. The MI300X sits between the H200 NVL and L40S.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A310E have any benchmark scores?

A: No, the database lists no benchmark entries for the Arc A310E, so its average benchmark score is 0 and it has no nearest rivals.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports graphics APIs and display outputs?

A: The Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The MI300X lists N/A for all APIs and has no display outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and suggests a 1150 W PSU. The Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W and suggests a 250 W PSU.

The Verdict

The recorded data draws a clear line between these two accelerators. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a top-tier compute accelerator, ranked at the 100th percentile, with 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, 192 GB HBM3, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. It narrowly trails the NVIDIA B200 by 8% and the H200 NVL by 5%, while leading the L40S by 7.5% and the RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%. This places it in the highest performance bracket for data center workloads, where large memory pools and extreme throughput matter most.

The Intel Arc A310E, with no recorded benchmarks, cannot be positioned on the same performance scale. Its specifications suggest a different role entirely: 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, 6 ray tracing cores, 16 ROPs, and 4 GB of GDDR6, all within a 75 W envelope. It supports modern graphics APIs and display outputs, making it a functional GPU for rendering or embedded tasks, but its compute capability is a fraction of the MI300X's.

For workloads that demand massive parallel compute, the MI300X is the clear choice based on its percentile ranking and rival deltas. For tasks requiring graphics output, ray tracing, or low power consumption, the Arc A310E has the relevant features, though its performance remains unquantified in the database. The data does not support a direct comparison of wins, as the head-to-head benchmark list is empty and wins for both items are zero. The MI300X's 100th percentile status is the strongest signal in the record, while the Arc A310E's 50th percentile with a zero average score leaves it without a measurable performance footprint.