AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc A380E x2 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance based on the database measurements?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X records an average benchmark score of 317,994, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, leaving its average at zero and its percentile at 50.

Q: What is the nearest rival to the AMD Instinct MI300X in the database?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL is the closest competitor, with an average score of 334,891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X. The MI300X is 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S, 8% behind the NVIDIA B200, and 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation.

Q: Which GPU has the larger memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, providing 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the process node and die characteristics of each GPU?

A: The MI300X is built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc A380E x2 uses a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a density of 45.9M per mm².

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380E x2 support graphics APIs while the AMD Instinct MI300X does not?

A: Yes. The Arc A380E x2 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and has 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The MI300X lists no API support and has no display outputs, reflecting its compute-focused design.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 1150 W, with no power connectors (it uses an OAM Module slot). The Arc A380E x2 has a 130 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 300 W, using a single 6-pin connector.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300X and Intel Arc A380E x2 occupy opposite ends of the GPU design spectrum. The MI300X uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, engineered exclusively for data center compute workloads. The Arc A380E x2 uses Intel's Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist generation aimed at graphics and embedded applications.

The manufacturing processes differ by one node generation. The MI300X is fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the Arc A380E x2 uses TSMC's 6 nm process. This difference contributes to the transistor count gap: the MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors, more than 21 times the 7,200 million in the Arc chip. The die sizes reflect this disparity, with the MI300X at 1017 mm² versus 157 mm² for the Arc. Consequently, the transistor density is substantially higher on the MI300X at 150.4M per mm², compared to 45.9M per mm².

The compute architectures diverge fundamentally. The MI300X provides 19,456 shading units with 1,216 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs and no pixel rate, confirming its purpose as a pure compute processor. The Arc A380E x2 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores, delivering a 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI300X reports no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and no graphics API support, while the Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory architectures also differ completely. The MI300X uses HBM3 with 192 GB capacity and an 8192-bit bus, achieving 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc uses GDDR6 with 6 GB capacity on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s. The clock behavior differs as well: the MI300X has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The memory clocks are 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the MI300X and 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for the Arc.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data indicates the AMD Instinct MI300X is designed for large-scale compute tasks. Its 192 GB HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth suits workloads requiring massive datasets held on-chip, such as large language model inference or scientific simulations. The absence of display outputs and graphics API support confirms no role in rendering or display tasks.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 wins in graphics-oriented contexts. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support, Vulkan 1.4, and eight mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs make it suitable for multi-display embedded systems or workstation visualization. The 32 ROPs and 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate provide actual rasterization capability, which the MI300X lacks entirely.

Benchmark results place the MI300X at the 100th percentile of all GPUs, indicating it outperforms nearly every other recorded device. The Arc A380E x2 sits at the 50th percentile with no benchmark entries, meaning the database holds no measured evidence of its compute performance. The MI300X's nearest rivals include NVIDIA H200 NVL, L40S, B200, and RTX 6000 Ada Generation, all of which are high-end data center or professional GPUs, reinforcing its positioning. The Arc's nearest rivals list is empty, so no comparative performance context exists.

The power envelopes reflect their intended environments: the MI300X draws 750 W TDP with a suggested 1150 W PSU, while the Arc requires only 130 W TDP and a 300 W PSU. The MI300X uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors, a server form factor. The Arc is a single-slot card measuring 265 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with a 6-pin power connector.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300X | Intel Arc A380E x2 |

|---------------|---------------------|---------------------|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Alchemist (Arc 3) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 96 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 186.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 64 |

| ROPs | 0 | 32 |

| RT Cores | Not specified | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 128.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 81.72 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| DirectX Support | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 265 mm x 127 mm x 20 mm |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2024-03-31 |

| Production Status | Not specified | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | Not specified | Battlemage |

The release dates differ by roughly four months, with the MI300X launching in December 2023 and the Arc in March 2024. The Arc is marked as end-of-life production status with a successor named Battlemage, while the MI300X's production status and successor remain unspecified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Instinct MI300X and Intel Arc A380E x2. The wins counters for both GPUs are zero, reflecting the absence of paired test results. This limitation requires analysis through indirect comparisons using the MI300X's available benchmark data and the Arc's lack thereof.

The MI300X has one recorded benchmark: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994. This single result places it at the 100th percentile across all GPUs in the database. The Arc A380E x2 has no benchmark entries, so its average score is zero and its percentile sits at 50, the median position. The absence of measurements for the Arc means no direct numerical comparison can be drawn between the two products.

The MI300X's score can be contextualized against its nearest rivals. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891, which is 5% higher. The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482, an 8% advantage. The NVIDIA L40S scores 295,763, putting the MI300X 7.5% ahead. The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287,237, with the MI300X leading by 10.7%. These deltas show the MI300X performing within a tight band of high-end data center GPUs, trailing the top two H100-class successors but ahead of the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada.

The FP32 and FP16 compute figures in the database provide additional separation. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, with a 1:1 ratio, indicating full-rate FP16 throughput. The Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16, with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. The MI300X's FP32 output is roughly 20 times higher than the Arc's, and its FP16 output is about 10 times higher.

The texture rates follow the same pattern: the MI300X achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s for the Arc. The Arc's pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s has no counterpart on the MI300X, which reports 0 MPixel/s. Memory bandwidth differs by a factor of roughly 28, with the MI300X at 5.32 TB/s and the Arc at 186.0 GB/s.

These recorded figures indicate that in any compute-heavy workload measurable by the database, the MI300X holds a decisive advantage. The Arc's only unique capabilities are graphics-related: rasterization, ray tracing, and display output, none of which appear in the MI300X's specification. For users seeking compute performance, the MI300X's percentile and rival comparisons place it at the upper end of the recorded spectrum. For graphics tasks, the Arc's feature set is the only one of the two with relevant support, though its compute performance remains unmeasured.