AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc Graphics 24EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The performance gap between these two parts is among the largest recorded in the database. The AMD Instinct MI300X delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. These are entirely different benchmark workloads, so direct comparison is not possible. Instead, the data shows where each part sits within its own competitive environment.

The MI300X ranks in the 100th percentile against all GPUs, meaning it outperforms virtually every other recorded graphics processor. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA B200, posts an average score of 345,482, which is 8% higher. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891, a 5% advantage over the MI300X. On the other side, the MI300X leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%. This positions the MI300X as a top-tier accelerator that trades blows only with the most powerful data center parts in the database.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, by contrast, sits in the 3rd percentile against all GPUs, placing it among the slowest recorded graphics solutions. Its nearest rivals show a remarkably tight cluster. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU both score exactly 733, resulting in a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which is 2.4% higher. The 24EU is essentially at parity with these entry-level parts from previous generations, confirming its position as a basic integrated graphics solution rather than a discrete-class performer.

The benchmark results indicate that the MI300X is designed for massive compute workloads where every percentage point of performance against rivals like the B200 or H200 NVL matters. The Arc 24EU, meanwhile, delivers scores that are indistinguishable from other low-end integrated and legacy discrete GPUs. Neither part wins the head-to-head because no common benchmark was recorded for both, but the percentile data makes the intended roles unmistakable.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a foundry but diverge sharply in every other architectural aspect. Both use TSMC fabrication, but the MI300X is built on a 5 nm process while the Arc 24EU uses a 3 nm node. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Arc 24EU integrates 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, for a density of 73.3 million per square millimeter. The MI300X is a massive accelerator die, while the Arc 24EU is a compact integrated graphics block within a larger Arrow Lake-S processor.

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, specifically optimized for compute acceleration, with the chip codename Aqua Vanjaram. The Arc 24EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture, designed for integrated graphics in client processors. The MI300X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the Arc 24EU belongs to the Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake) generation.

The compute resources differ by orders of magnitude. The MI300X contains 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, reflecting its compute-first design. The Arc 24EU has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 6 ROPs, a conventional graphics pipeline layout. Neither part lists dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores in the recorded data.

Memory subsystems are completely different. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc 24EU uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth figure, meaning its performance scales with the host system's memory configuration. The MI300X runs its memory at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed, while the Arc 24EU has no dedicated memory clock recorded.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Arc 24EU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The Arc's boost capability is close to the MI300X's boost, but its base clock is far lower, indicating a power-conscious design that ramps up only when needed.

The MI300X has no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, and uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The Arc 24EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and connects via a Ring Bus. The MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors, while the Arc 24EU is an IGP with motherboard-dependent outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data indicates clear strengths for each part in different contexts. The MI300X wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is also 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s. These figures place it at the top of the database's compute rankings, with a 100th percentile score. The nearest rivals that beat it, the NVIDIA B200 and H200 NVL, do so by 8% and 5% respectively, but the MI300X leads the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada by 7.5% and 10.7%. The data shows this is a part for large-scale AI training, scientific simulation, and high-bandwidth data center workloads.

The Arc 24EU wins in power efficiency and integration. Its TDP is 65 W, compared to 750 W for the MI300X. The Arc's FP32 performance is 768.0 GFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is 1.536 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The pixel rate is 12.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s. These numbers are small in absolute terms, but the 65 W envelope makes it suitable for everyday desktop tasks where the MI300X's 750 W requirement would be impractical. The Arc also supports modern graphics APIs, which the MI300X does not, making it the only one of the two that can render DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan content.

The MI300X's memory capacity of 192 GB with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the Arc's system shared memory. The MI300X has zero ROPs and zero pixel rate, confirming it cannot perform traditional display output. The Arc has 6 ROPs and a 12.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, enabling actual graphics rendering. The MI300X also has no display outputs, while the Arc uses motherboard-dependent outputs.

The production status differs. The Arc 24EU is listed as Active, while the MI300X has no production status recorded. The release dates are also different: the MI300X launched on 2023-12-05, and the Arc 24EU launched on 2024-10-23.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it in the 100th percentile. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, placing it in the 3rd percentile. These are different benchmarks, so they cannot be directly compared.

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

A: The MI300X trails the NVIDIA B200 by 8% and the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5%, but leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%.

Q: How does the Arc 24EU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc 24EU is at parity with the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU, both scoring 733. It leads the AMD Radeon HD 6470M by 1.4% and trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M by 2.4%.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc 24EU uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: No. The Arc 24EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support recorded.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc 24EU has a TDP of 65 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU:

• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram vs Arrow Lake-S
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 vs Xe-LPG
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) vs Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake)
• Process Node: 5 nm vs 3 nm
• Transistors: 153,000 million vs 17,800 million
• Die Size: 1017 mm² vs 243 mm²
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² vs 73.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz vs 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2100 MHz vs 2000 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective vs System Shared
• Memory Size: 192 GB vs System Shared
• Memory Type: HBM3 vs System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit vs System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s vs System Dependent
• Shading Units: 19456 vs 192
• TMUs: 1216 vs 12
• ROPs: 0 vs 6
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s vs 12.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s vs 24.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS vs 768.0 GFLOPS
• FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 1.536 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 750 W vs 65 W
• Slot Width: OAM Module vs IGP
• Power Connectors: None vs null
• Suggested PSU: 1150 W vs null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs Ring Bus
• Display Outputs: No outputs vs Motherboard Dependent
• DirectX: N/A vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL: N/A vs 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A vs 1.4
• Production Status: null vs Active
• Release Date: 2023-12-05 vs 2024-10-23
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct vs HD Graphics

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates these are not competing products. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a data center accelerator built for maximum compute throughput. Its 100th percentile ranking, 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 192 GB of HBM3 memory, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth place it among the fastest accelerators in the database, competing directly with the NVIDIA B200, H200 NVL, L40S, and RTX 6000 Ada Generation. It has no display outputs and no graphics API support, confirming its role as a compute-only device.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU is an integrated graphics solution for client processors. Its 3rd percentile ranking, 65 W TDP, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 make it suitable for basic display and light graphics workloads. Its performance is statistically identical to the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU, and it trades positions with legacy parts like the Radeon HD 6470M and GeForce GT 415M.

The choice between them depends entirely on the workload. The data shows the MI300X is the only option for high-bandwidth compute tasks that require massive memory capacity and multi-terabyte memory bandwidth. The Arc 24EU is the only option for systems that need integrated graphics with modern API support and minimal power draw. The 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU for the MI300X versus the 65 W TDP for the Arc 24EU further separate their deployment scenarios. A user requiring the MI300X's compute capabilities cannot substitute the Arc 24EU, and a user needing desktop graphics output cannot substitute the MI300X.