AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single benchmark result for the AMD Instinct MI300X, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has no benchmark entries in the database. The Geekbench OpenCL score for the AMD part is 317,994 points, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The Intel part sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, meaning no comparable measurement exists for a direct head-to-head comparison.

Against its nearest rivals in the database, the AMD Instinct MI300X trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5%, with the H200 scoring 334,891 points. The NVIDIA B200 leads by a wider margin, posting 345,482 points, which is 8% ahead of the MI300X. Conversely, the MI300X outperforms the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5%, with the L40S scoring 295,763 points, and it beats the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%, which scores 287,237 points. These deltas position the MI300X firmly in the upper tier of computing accelerators, though not at the absolute top of the database rankings.

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has no nearest rivals listed and no benchmark scores recorded, so the database contains no basis for quantifying its performance against the MI300X or any other GPU. The only structural comparison available comes from the specification fields, which reveal an extreme asymmetry in compute resources, memory configuration, and power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins in every measurable category where data exists. Its FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS, compared to 4.608 TFLOPS for the Intel part, a difference of roughly 17.7 times based on the recorded figures. FP16 performance shows a different ratio: the MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part delivers 9.216 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning the MI300X is about 8.9 times higher in raw FP16 throughput. Texture rate stands at 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the AMD part versus 144.0 GTexel/s for Intel, a factor of 17.7 as well.

Memory capacity is another decisive win for the AMD accelerator: 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, versus a system-shared memory configuration for the Intel IGP with system-dependent bandwidth. The pixel rate tells a different story, however. The Intel part records 72.00 GPixel/s, while the MI300X lists 0 MPixel/s, meaning the AMD product has no raster output units and cannot produce pixels, while the Intel IGP has 32 ROPs and a functional pixel pipeline. This is a critical functional difference: the MI300X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile is an integrated GPU designed for rendering on portable devices.

The Intel part wins on power efficiency in practical terms, operating at 28 W TDP versus 750 W for the MI300X. The database does not record a performance-per-watt score, but the raw TDP figures show a 26.8 times difference in thermal budget. The Intel IGP also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300X lists N/A for all three APIs, confirming that the AMD part is not intended for graphics workloads.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the AMD Instinct MI300X is a data center compute accelerator for massive parallel workloads, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile is an integrated graphics solution for laptops. The MI300X delivers 317,994 Geekbench OpenCL points and ranks above 100% of all GPUs in the database, but it lacks display outputs, pixel processing, and graphics API support. The Intel part, with no recorded benchmark score and a 50th percentile ranking, is a functional rendering device with 32 ROPs and a 72.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, but its compute throughput is orders of magnitude lower.

A user requiring FP32 or FP16 throughput for scientific computing, AI inference, or HPC workloads would choose the MI300X based on its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 rating and 192 GB HBM3 memory. A user building a portable system requiring graphics output would choose the Intel part, as it alone among the two supports DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it operates at 28 W. The MI300X cannot render to a display, and the Intel IGP cannot approach the compute density of the MI300X. These products occupy separate categories, so the verdict from the database is that each wins in its intended domain, with no overlap in use cases.

FAQ

Q: What is the Geekbench OpenCL score for each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 points. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has no recorded benchmark score in the database.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to the NVIDIA H200 NVL?

A: The MI300X scores 317,994, which is 5% below the H200 NVL's 334,891 points.

Q: Which part supports DirectX and Vulkan?

A: Only the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile supports these APIs, listing DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for all three.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 throughput figures?

A: The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel IGP delivers 4.608 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Why does the Intel part have a pixel rate but the AMD part does not?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has 32 ROPs and a 72.00 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI300X has 0 ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, reflecting its role as a compute-only accelerator with no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built 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 Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Meteor Lake chip, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process, with no transistor count, die size, or density data recorded.

The MI300X features 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs. The Intel part has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Clock behavior differs substantially: the MI300X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 2250 MHz boost. The AMD memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel memory clock is listed as system shared.

The MI300X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. The MI300X is an OAM Module with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel part is an IGP with no power connector data and no suggested PSU. Display outputs are absent on the MI300X, while the Intel part's outputs are portable device dependent. The MI300X has no graphics API support, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The MI300X sits in the Instinct (MIx) generation with a Radeon Instinct predecessor. The Intel part is in the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation with an HD Graphics-M predecessor. The MI300X released on 2023-12-05, and the Intel part released on 2023-12-13, eight days later. The Intel part is marked as Active in production status, while the MI300X has no recorded production status.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products in the database:

• Manufacturer: AMD versus Intel
• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram versus Meteor Lake
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 versus Xe-LPG
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake)
• Process node: 5 nm (TSMC) versus 10 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus null
• Die size: 1017 mm² versus null
• Transistor density: 150.4M / mm² versus null
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 2250 MHz
• Memory clock: 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective versus system shared
• Memory size: 192 GB versus system shared
• Memory type: HBM3 versus system shared
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit versus system shared
• Memory bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus system dependent
• Shading units: 19,456 versus 1,024
• TMUs: 1,216 versus 64
• ROPs: 0 versus 32
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 72.00 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 144.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 4.608 TFLOPS
• FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 9.216 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 750 W versus 28 W
• Slot width: OAM Module versus IGP
• Power connectors: None versus null
• Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus null
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus
• Display outputs: No outputs versus portable device dependent
• DirectX: N/A versus 12 (12_1)
• OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4
• Production status: null versus Active
• Release date: 2023-12-05 versus 2023-12-13
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus HD Graphics-M
• APIs: no graphics APIs versus full graphics API support
• Benchmark score: 317,994 versus 0
• Percentile: 100 versus 50
• Nearest rivals: four NVIDIA parts versus none