AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc A580 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the Intel Arc A580 is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively one-sided. The MI300X records a score of 317,994, while the Arc A580 manages 91,657. That puts the AMD accelerator 246.9% ahead, a gap that dwarfs the differences seen in each card's respective rivalry groups.

To put that margin in context, the MI300X's nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA accelerators. The H200 NVL averages 334,891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X. The B200 averages 345,482, 8% higher. Conversely, the MI300X leads the L40S (295,763) by 7.5% and the RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237) by 10.7%. The Arc A580, meanwhile, sits in a completely different performance tier. Its nearest rivals are all within roughly a single percentage point: the RX 5600 OEM (58,085) is 0.6% behind, the Arc A570M (58,239) is 0.8% behind, the RX 6950 XT (58,392) is 1.1% behind, and the RX 9070 GRE (57,367) is 0.7% ahead. The MI300X's OpenCL score is more than 3.4 times the Arc A580's, and the Arc A580's average benchmark score across all its recorded tests is 57,756, placing it in the 87th percentile of all GPUs. The MI300X's single recorded benchmark score of 317,994 puts it in the 100th percentile.

The head-to-head record is therefore 1 win for AMD and 0 for Intel. No other shared tests exist in the database, so the OpenCL result stands as the only direct comparison point. The data shows a clean sweep, but the magnitude of the delta is what carries the real signal: this is not a close contest, and the architectural gulf between the two products explains why.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Arc A580 uses Xe-HPG on the DG2-512 die, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Both share a foundry, but the process nodes differ by one generation step. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc A580 packs 21,700 million transistors into 406 mm², for a density of 53.4M per mm². The MI300X has roughly 7 times the transistor count and a die more than twice the area, plus nearly 3 times the density.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and no ROPs, with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Arc A580 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, giving it a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300X versus 384.0 GTexel/s for the Arc A580. Floating-point throughput tells the same story: the MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The Arc A580 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The MI300X also has no dedicated RT cores listed, while the Arc A580 has 24.

Memory is another chasm. The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, with 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Arc A580 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The MI300X has 24 times the capacity and more than 10 times the bandwidth. The Arc A580's memory clock is higher in raw MHz, but the MI300X's bus width and HBM3 topology make the effective bandwidth far superior.

Clock speeds differ in direction. The Arc A580 has a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost of 2000 MHz. The MI300X has a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz. The MI300X boosts slightly higher, but its base clock is much lower, reflecting a design tuned for sustained throughput rather than frequency. The power envelopes reflect that: the MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the Arc A580 has a TDP of 175 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The MI300X uses an OAM module slot width with no power connectors, while the Arc A580 is a dual-slot card with 2x 8-pin connectors.

API support is another clean split. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Arc A580 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X has no display outputs, while the Arc A580 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the Arc A580 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, with no successor listed. The Arc A580's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage, with a production status of Active. The MI300X's release date is 2023-12-05, and the Arc A580's is 2023-10-09.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two products built for entirely different tasks. The MI300X is an accelerator with no display outputs, no consumer API support, and a 750 W TDP. It is designed for compute workloads where massive memory capacity, bandwidth, and FP32/FP16 throughput matter. The Arc A580 is a consumer graphics card with full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, display outputs, and a 175 W TDP. It is designed for rendering, gaming, and general graphics work.

For compute workloads measured by OpenCL, the MI300X is the clear choice. Its 246.9% lead over the Arc A580 in the only shared benchmark is consistent with its position in the 100th percentile of all GPUs, versus the Arc A580's 87th percentile. The MI300X also sits within 5% and 8% of the top NVIDIA accelerators in its rivalry group, which signals that it is competitive at the very top of the compute hierarchy.

For graphics workloads, the Arc A580 is the only viable option of the two. The MI300X cannot output video, supports no graphics APIs, and has zero ROPs. The Arc A580's 96 ROPs, 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 24 RT cores give it actual rendering capability. Its nearest rivals in the database, all within 1.1% of its average score, show that it performs in line with midrange consumer GPUs.

The database does not record any gaming or render-specific benchmarks for the MI300X, so no direct comparison exists for those tasks. But the architectural data alone is sufficient: a card with no display outputs and no graphics API support cannot function as a consumer GPU. Conversely, a card with 192 GB of HBM3 and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 is not competing in the same league as an 8 GB GDDR6 card with 12.29 TFLOPS. The verdict is therefore a split decision based on use case, not a ranking of overall superiority. The MI300X wins every compute metric in the database; the Arc A580 wins every graphics feature that the MI300X simply lacks.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in every major specification category. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process, the Arc A580 a 6 nm process. Transistor count is 153,000 million versus 21,700 million. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 406 mm². Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² versus 53.4M per mm².

Clock speeds: base 1000 MHz versus 1700 MHz, boost 2100 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Memory size: 192 GB versus 8 GB. Memory type: HBM3 versus GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s.

Compute units: 19,456 shading units versus 3,072. TMUs: 1,216 versus 192. ROPs: 0 versus 96. RT cores: none listed versus 24. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical: TDP 750 W versus 175 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus Dual-slot. Power connectors: None versus 2x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus 450 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: No outputs versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

API support: DirectX N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL N/A versus 4.6, Vulkan N/A versus 1.4. Release dates: 2023-12-05 versus 2023-10-09. Predecessors: Radeon Instinct versus Xe Graphics. Successors: none listed versus Battlemage. Production status: not listed versus Active.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 246.9% higher than the Intel Arc A580's 91,657.

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

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

Q: How does the Arc A580 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A580's average benchmark score is 57,756. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085) is 0.6% behind, the Intel Arc A570M (58,239) is 0.8% behind, the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392) is 1.1% behind, and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE (57,367) is 0.7% ahead.

Q: Can the Arc A580 do ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A580 has 24 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features. The MI300X has no RT cores listed and no DirectX support.

Q: Does the MI300X support display output?

A: No, the MI300X has no display outputs. The Arc A580 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A580 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.