AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc A530M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the Intel Arc A530M: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 points, while the Intel Arc A530M scores 49,735 points. This yields a delta of 539.4% in favor of the AMD part, the largest possible margin in this comparison. The MI300X delivers roughly 6.4 times the raw OpenCL score of the mobile Intel GPU, a gap that dwarfs the differences observed between either product and its own nearest rivals.

The MI300X sits at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning no other recorded graphics processor scores higher in the average benchmark calculation. Its average score across all recorded tests is 317,994, which matches its single OpenCL result. Its closest competitor in the database is the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 points, putting the MI300X 8% behind that part. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891 points, placing the MI300X 5% behind it. Against the NVIDIA L40S, which scores 295,763 points, the MI300X leads by 7.5%. The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287,237 points, and the MI300X leads that part by 10.7%. These rival deltas are all single-digit to low-double-digit percentages, which highlights how tightly clustered the top-tier accelerators are compared with the massive gap between the MI300X and the Arc A530M.

The Intel Arc A530M, by contrast, achieves an 85th percentile ranking across all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 46,614, derived from two recorded tests: 49,735 in Geekbench OpenCL and 43,492 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6550M at 46,702 points, which is 0.2% ahead of the Arc A530M. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 46,601 points, effectively a tie at 0% delta. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 46,043 points, putting the Arc A530M 1.2% ahead. The NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation scores 45,972 points, with the Arc A530M ahead by 1.4%. These rival relationships show the Arc A530M operating in a completely different performance tier from the MI300X; its nearest competitors are mid-range mobile and workstation parts, not data-center accelerators.

The single head-to-head result confirms that the MI300X wins the only directly comparable benchmark. The win count stands at 1 for the AMD part and 0 for the Intel part. There is no recorded Geekbench Vulkan result for the MI300X, so the Arc A530M's Vulkan score of 43,492 cannot be compared directly. The OpenCL result alone, however, establishes the performance hierarchy from the database's perspective.

The Mi300X's advantage extends beyond the raw score. The delta of 539.4% is not a marginal improvement; it represents a fundamental difference in compute throughput. The MI300X's FP32 rate is recorded at 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Arc A530M delivers 3.994 TFLOPS in FP32. The AMD part's FP16 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel part reaches 7.987 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. In texture rate, the MI300X records 2,553.6 GTexel/s against the Arc A530M's 124.8 GTexel/s. The pixel rate tells a different story: the MI300X records 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the Arc A530M delivers 62.40 GPixel/s from its 48 ROPs. This is the one measured specification where the Intel part has a functional advantage, though it does not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

The Verdict

The database clearly separates these two products into different categories. The AMD Instinct MI300X is an accelerator designed for maximum compute throughput, with a 750 W TDP, an OAM module slot width, no display outputs, and a 192 GB HBM3 memory subsystem. The Intel Arc A530M is a mobile GPU with a 65 W TDP, an IGP slot width, portable-device-dependent display outputs, and 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. No benchmark in the recorded results places the Arc A530M ahead of the MI300X.

The percentile rankings reinforce this verdict. The MI300X sits at the 100th percentile, meaning it outperforms every other GPU in the database in the average score metric. The Arc A530M sits at the 85th percentile, which is respectable for a mobile part but far from the top of the overall rankings. The average score of the MI300X is 317,994, while the Arc A530M averages 46,614. The difference in average scores is 271,380 points, a factor of roughly 6.8.

The nearest-rival data places each product in its proper context. The MI300X competes with the NVIDIA B200, H200 NVL, L40S, and RTX 6000 Ada Generation, all data-center or professional workstation accelerators with average scores between 287,237 and 345,482. The Arc A530M competes with the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and RX 6550M, plus the NVIDIA RTX A2000 and RTX 5880 Ada Generation, all with average scores between 45,972 and 46,702. The two product families share no common rival in the database, confirming that they serve different segments.

For a system builder prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL workloads, the MI300X is the clear choice from the recorded data. For a portable or low-power system requiring graphics output and API support, the Arc A530M is the only one of the two with display outputs and DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. The MI300X records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, meaning it cannot function as a graphics adapter in the traditional sense. The Arc A530M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins in every recorded benchmark category where both products have data. Its OpenCL score of 317,994 is 539.4% higher than the Arc A530M's 49,735. The MI300X also wins on memory bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 224.0 GB/s. Its memory capacity of 192 GB is 24 times the Arc A530M's 8 GB. The bus width of 8192 bit versus 128 bit gives the MI300X a massive memory parallelism advantage. The MI300X uses HBM3 memory, while the Arc A530M uses GDDR6.

The Intel Arc A530M wins in areas that the MI300X does not address. It has 48 ROPs and a pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s, while the MI300X has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Arc A530M includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the MI300X lists no RT cores in the database. The Arc A530M provides display outputs that are portable-device dependent, while the MI300X has no outputs at all. The Arc A530M also has a much lower power envelope at 65 W versus 750 W, making it suitable for systems without the power delivery and cooling infrastructure required by an OAM module.

The API support split is decisive for certain workloads. The Arc A530M exposes DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling graphics rendering and compute through standard graphics APIs. The MI300X records N/A for all three APIs, meaning the database shows no graphics API compatibility for that part. This makes the Arc A530M the only option of the two for gaming, desktop rendering, or any application that requires a graphics driver stack.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, which is 539.4% higher than the Intel Arc A530M's 49,735.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The MI300X is 8% behind the NVIDIA B200 (345,482), 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891), 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S (295,763), and 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237).

Q: How does the Arc A530M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A530M is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6550M (46,702), tied with the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46,601), 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46,043), and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972).

Q: Does the Arc A530M have ray tracing support?

A: Yes, the Arc A530M has 12 ray tracing cores. The MI300X does not list any RT cores in the database.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192 bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128 bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can either GPU output to a display?

A: The MI300X has no display outputs. The Arc A530M has display outputs that are portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc A530M uses the DG2-256 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 42.8M per mm². The MI300X has over 13 times the transistor count and nearly 4 times the die area.

The compute fabric differs substantially. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Arc A530M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The MI300X has no recorded RT cores or tensor cores, while the Arc A530M has 12 RT cores and no tensor cores. The MI300X's FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Arc A530M's FP32 throughput is 3.994 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 7.987 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The MI300X uses HBM3 across an 8192 bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A530M uses GDDR6 across a 128 bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s. The MI300X's memory clock is recorded at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the Arc A530M's memory clock is 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective. The MI300X has 192 GB of memory; the Arc A530M has 8 GB.

The MI300X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation and was released on 2023-12-05, with the Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. The Arc A530M belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 5 Mobile) generation and was released on 2023-07-31. The MI300X's production status is not recorded, while the Arc A530M is listed as active. The MI300X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Arc A530M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The clock specifications differ across base, boost, and memory. The MI300X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, with memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Arc A530M runs at 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The MI300X has a higher base and boost clock, while the Arc A530M has a higher effective memory data rate.

The TDP difference is substantial: 750 W for the MI300X versus 65 W for the Arc A530M. The MI300X has a suggested PSU rating of 1150 W, while the Arc A530M has no suggested PSU listed. The MI300X uses an OAM Module slot width and has no power connectors, while the Arc A530M uses an IGP slot width and has no power connector data recorded.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Arc A530M. Display outputs are absent on the MI300X and portable device dependent on the Arc A530M. The API support differs completely: the MI300X records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the Arc A530M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. No dimensions are recorded for either part, and neither has a launch MSRP in the database.