AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc A570M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300X delivers a 446% higher Geekbench OpenCL score than the Intel Arc A570M, establishing a decisive performance gap between a data center accelerator and a mobile graphics processor. The MI300X records 317,994 points against the Arc A570M’s 58,239, with the AMD part ranking in the 100th percentile of all GPUs while the Intel part sits in the 88th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is overwhelmingly one-sided. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, while the Intel Arc A570M scores 58,239. This represents a delta of 446%, meaning the MI300X delivers roughly 5.46 times the raw compute throughput of the Arc A570M in this workload.

Relative to their own competitive sets, both parts perform close to their expected positions. The MI300X trails the NVIDIA B200 by 8% (345,482 vs. 317,994) and the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% (334,891 vs. 317,994). It leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% (295,763) and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% (287,237). The Arc A570M sits within a tight cluster: it is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392), 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085), 0.5% behind the NVIDIA P102-100 (58,528), and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657). The Arc A570M’s score is essentially indistinguishable from these four rivals, with deltas under one percentage point.

The MI300X’s 446% advantage over the Arc A570M dwarfs any difference seen within either part’s nearest rival group. The largest gap in the MI300X’s rival set is 10.7%, and the largest in the Arc A570M’s set is 0.7%. This indicates that the two products occupy entirely different performance tiers, not merely different positions on the same curve.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip called Aqua Vanjaram, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Arc A570M uses the Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-256 die, also made by TSMC but on a 6 nm node. The process difference contributes to a massive transistor disparity: the MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The Arc A570M has 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, with a density of 42.8 million per square millimeter. The MI300X has over 13 times more transistors and a die nearly four times larger.

Shading unit counts reflect this scale gap. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, while the Arc A570M has 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs. The MI300X reports 0 pixel rate and 0 ROPs, consistent with a compute-focused accelerator that lacks a traditional rasterization pipeline. The Arc A570M has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 83.20 GPixel/s. The Arc A570M also includes 16 ray tracing cores, which the MI300X does not list.

Texture rate figures show the compute divide: the MI300X achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Arc A570M manages 166.4 GTexel/s. Floating point performance follows the same pattern. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Arc A570M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS in FP32 and 10.65 TFLOPS in FP16 (2:1 ratio). The MI300X’s FP32 output is over 15 times higher, and its FP16 output is about 7.7 times higher.

Memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A570M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300X has 24 times the memory capacity and roughly 23.7 times the bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the MI300X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc A570M runs at 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the MI300X and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the Arc A570M.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins the only recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a 446% margin. Its strengths lie in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and capacity. The 192 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth enables workloads that require holding large datasets close to the processor. The 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures indicate balanced performance for both single-precision and half-precision compute tasks. The 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate suggests the part can sustain heavy texture sampling if used in compute contexts.

The Arc A570M wins in areas related to conventional graphics rendering. It has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 83.20 GPixel/s, while the MI300X reports 0 MPixel/s. The Arc A570M includes 16 ray tracing cores, which the MI300X does not list. The Arc A570M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Arc A570M also has display outputs described as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the MI300X has no display outputs at all.

The Arc A570M’s power footprint is far smaller. Its TDP is 75 W, compared to 750 W for the MI300X. The MI300X suggests a 1150 W power supply, while the Arc A570M lists no suggested PSU. The Arc A570M is an IGP slot format, whereas the MI300X is an OAM Module. These factors position the Arc A570M for mobile or low-power embedded use, while the MI300X targets rack-mounted accelerator deployments.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in every major specification category. Process node: 5 nm for the MI300X, 6 nm for the Arc A570M. Transistors: 153,000 million vs. 11,500 million. Die size: 1017 mm² vs. 269 mm². Transistor density: 150.4M per mm² vs. 42.8M per mm². Base clock: 1000 MHz vs. 900 MHz. Boost clock: 2100 MHz vs. 1300 MHz. Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) vs. 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Memory size: 192 GB vs. 8 GB. Memory type: HBM3 vs. GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit vs. 128 bit. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s vs. 224.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 19,456 vs. 2,048. TMUs: 1,216 vs. 128. ROPs: 0 vs. 64. Ray tracing cores: not listed vs. 16. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s vs. 83.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s vs. 166.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS vs. 5.325 TFLOPS. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) vs. 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 750 W vs. 75 W. Slot width: OAM Module vs. IGP. Power connectors: None vs. not listed. Suggested PSU: 1150 W vs. not listed. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs. PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: No outputs vs. Portable Device Dependent.

API support differs sharply. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Arc A570M lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates: the MI300X launched on December 5, 2023, while the Arc A570M launched on July 31, 2023. The MI300X’s predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the Arc A570M has no listed predecessor. The Arc A570M has a production status of Active, while the MI300X has none listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, which is 446% higher than the Intel Arc A570M’s 58,239.

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

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

Q: How does the Arc A570M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A570M is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392), 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085), 0.5% behind the NVIDIA P102-100 (58,528), and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657).

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A570M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports graphics APIs?

A: The Arc A570M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and suggests a 1150 W power supply. The Arc A570M has a 75 W TDP and lists no suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data directs distinct use cases. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 750 W TDP. Its 192 GB HBM3 memory, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 performance suit large-scale compute workloads where data residency and throughput matter more than rendering. Its 446% lead over the Arc A570M in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with its 100th percentile ranking, confirms it sits at the top of the performance distribution.

The Intel Arc A570M is a mobile graphics processor with 8 GB GDDR6, 16 ray tracing cores, 64 ROPs, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate support. Its 75 W TDP and IGP slot format fit portable devices. Its benchmark score of 58,239 places it in the 88th percentile, within 0.7% of four comparable GPUs. The Arc A570M wins on graphics features, power efficiency, and display capability, none of which the MI300X offers.

Selection depends on the workload. For compute-heavy tasks that require massive memory capacity and raw floating point throughput, the MI300X is the clear choice. For rendering, ray tracing, or any application requiring a display output and graphics API support, the Arc A570M is the only viable option between the two. The MI300X cannot output video, does not expose DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, and draws ten times the power of the Arc A570M. Conversely, the Arc A570M cannot approach the MI300X’s compute performance, memory bandwidth, or capacity.

The benchmark data shows no overlap in capability. A 446% score gap, a 24x difference in memory size, and mutually exclusive feature sets mean these products serve different markets entirely. The MI300X belongs in a server rack with an 1150 W PSU; the Arc A570M belongs in a laptop or small form factor system. Neither part can substitute for the other in its intended role.