AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

The AMD Instinct MI300X and Intel Arc A380E occupy completely different segments of the GPU market. The MI300X is a data center accelerator with a recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Arc A380E has no recorded benchmark score and sits in the 50th percentile, with an average benchmark score of zero. The delta between these two parts is not just about raw performance; it reflects fundamentally different design goals, memory architectures, and target workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the MI300X delivering an OpenCL score of 317,994. In the database, this places it 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which has an average score of 334,891. It is also 8% behind the NVIDIA B200, which scores 345,482. Against the NVIDIA L40S, the MI300X leads by 7.5%, with the L40S scoring 295,763. The MI300X also leads the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%, as that card scores 287,237. These numbers establish the MI300X as a high-end compute part, competitive with the top accelerators in the database.

The Arc A380E has no benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and its percentile rank is 50. There are no rival comparisons available for this part. The absence of recorded scores means the data cannot directly quantify its performance against the MI300X or any other GPU. What the data does provide is a full specification sheet, which allows for a structural comparison.

The raw compute numbers highlight the scale of the difference. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32. That is a 20x difference in theoretical FP32 throughput, based solely on the recorded figures. In FP16, the MI300X again delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The Arc A380E delivers 8.192 TFLOPS of FP16, but at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. Even with that ratio advantage, the MI300X still has 10x the FP16 throughput of the Arc A380E.

Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern. The MI300X has a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The Arc A380E has a texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s. The MI300X is roughly 20x faster in texture throughput. The pixel rate data is unusual: the MI300X is recorded at 0 MPixel/s, while the Arc A380E is recorded at 64.00 GPixel/s. This reflects the MI300X having no ROPs, as it is not designed for rasterization output. The Arc A380E has 32 ROPs and is a conventional graphics processor.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins in every compute-oriented metric recorded in the database. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput are far higher than the Arc A380E. Its texture rate is far higher. Its memory bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s, compared to 186.0 GB/s for the Arc A380E, a difference of roughly 28.6x. Its memory capacity is 192 GB, compared to 6 GB, a 32x difference. For workloads that depend on matrix math, large model residency, or high-bandwidth data movement, the MI300X is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The Arc A380E wins in areas that the MI300X does not address at all. The MI300X has no display outputs. The Arc A380E has 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The MI300X has no API support recorded for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, all listed as N/A. The Arc A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc A380E also has 8 ray tracing cores, while the MI300X has no ray tracing cores recorded. For any workload involving rendering to a display, ray tracing, or standard graphics APIs, the Arc A380E is the only one of the two that the data shows as capable.

The Arc A380E also wins on physical integration flexibility. It is a single-slot card with dimensions of 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The MI300X is an OAM module, which is a different physical form factor entirely. The Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc A380E requires far less power delivery infrastructure.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, using the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The Arc A380E uses Xe-HPG architecture, with the DG2-128 chip. These are entirely different architectural families, one optimized for compute acceleration and the other for graphics rendering.

The process nodes differ. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Arc A380E uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the scale difference. The MI300X has 153,000 million transistors on a die size of 1017 mm². The Arc A380E has 7,200 million transistors on a die size of 157 mm². The resulting transistor densities are 150.4M per mm² for the MI300X and 45.9M per mm² for the Arc A380E. The MI300X uses a much larger die with a much higher transistor density.

The shading unit counts show the compute focus of each design. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs. The Arc A380E has 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs. The MI300X has no ROPs recorded, while the Arc A380E has 32. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores, while the Arc A380E has 8. Neither part has tensor cores recorded in the database.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The MI300X uses HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus width and a recorded memory clock of 1300 MHz, which translates to 5.2 Gbps effective. The Arc A380E uses GDDR6 memory with a 96-bit bus width and a memory clock of 1937 MHz, translating to 15.5 Gbps effective. Despite the much higher effective clock speed on the Arc A380E, the MI300X achieves 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth due to its massive bus width, versus 186.0 GB/s for the Arc A380E.

The clock behavior differs as well. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Arc A380E has a fixed clock of 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The MI300X relies on boosting from a low base to a high boost, while the Arc A380E runs at a constant frequency.

Specification Differences

The interface and expansion differ. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The Arc A380E uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300X has no power connectors, as it is an OAM module. The Arc A380E also has no power connectors recorded, but it is a single-slot card with a much lower power requirement.

The display capabilities are a major differentiator. The MI300X has no display outputs. The Arc A380E has 4x DisplayPort 2.0. The API support follows the same split: the MI300X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, while the Arc A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The release dates differ by several months. The MI300X was released on December 5, 2023. The Arc A380E was released on March 31, 2024. The Arc A380E is recorded as end-of-life, with a successor named Battlemage. The MI300X has a predecessor listed as Radeon Instinct and no successor recorded. The Arc A380E lists Xe Graphics as its predecessor.

The power requirements are far apart. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. The MI300X has roughly 20x the FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380E support display outputs?

A: Yes, the Arc A380E has 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The AMD Instinct MI300X has no display outputs recorded.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 8 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI300X has no ray tracing cores recorded in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to other accelerators in the database?

A: The MI300X scores 317,994 in OpenCL, which is 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL, 8% behind the NVIDIA B200, 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S, and 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation.