AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc Graphics 32EU Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents two fundamentally different products with no shared benchmark results. The AMD Instinct MI300X delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it in the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, sitting at the 3rd percentile. These products target entirely separate segments: the MI300X is an OAM module with no display outputs, designed for compute workloads, while the Arc Graphics 32EU is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that ships as part of Arrow Lake-S silicon and handles motherboard-dependent display output.

For compute-intensive tasks such as large-scale inference or HPC workloads, the MI300X is the only viable choice based on the recorded data. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 (8% ahead), the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 (5% ahead), and the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 (7.5% behind). For users needing integrated graphics in a desktop processor, the Arc Graphics 32EU competes within a narrow performance band, matching the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and 64EU at 733, trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M by 2.4%, and leading the AMD Radeon HD 6470M by 1.4%. There is no crossover point where these two products address the same buyer.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. The die measures 1017 mm² and contains 153,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc Graphics 32EU uses the Arrow Lake-S chip built on Xe-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm TSMC process. Its die measures 243 mm² and contains 17,800 million transistors, producing a density of 73.3M per mm². The MI300X packs 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, resulting in a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Arc Graphics 32EU carries 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, achieving 31.20 GTexel/s and 15.60 GPixel/s.

The MI300X operates with a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the Arc Graphics 32EU runs at a 300 MHz base and 1950 MHz boost. The MI300X supports no graphics APIs (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all report N/A), whereas the Arc Graphics 32EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X has no display outputs; the Arc Graphics 32EU's outputs are motherboard dependent. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, and the Arc Graphics 32EU connects through a Ring Bus. The MI300X's TDP is 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the Arc Graphics 32EU draws 65 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two products. Each was tested under a different workload: the MI300X in Geekbench OpenCL and the Arc Graphics 32EU in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Consequently, the wins tally stands at zero for both.

The MI300X's OpenCL score of 317,994 places it 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) and 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237). It trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% (334,891) and the NVIDIA B200 by 8% (345,482). The Arc Graphics 32EU's Steel Nomad score of 733 ties the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and 64EU exactly (both 733), edges out the AMD Radeon HD 6470M by 1.4% (723), and falls 2.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (751).

The MI300X's percentile rank of 100 indicates it sits at the top of the database's distribution. The Arc Graphics 32EU's 3rd percentile places it near the bottom. The average benchmark score for the MI300X is 317,994; for the Arc Graphics 32EU it is 733. These figures confirm that the MI300X operates at a performance tier roughly three orders of magnitude higher, though the different test suites prevent direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher clock speed?

A: The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Arc Graphics 32EU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1950 MHz.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Arc Graphics 32EU uses system shared memory, with its bus width, type, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The MI300X contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Arc Graphics 32EU contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The MI300X achieves a density of 150.4M transistors per mm², while the Arc Graphics 32EU achieves 73.3M per mm².

Q: Which GPU supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The Arc Graphics 32EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no graphics API support.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc Graphics 32EU has a TDP of 65 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: How do the release dates compare?

A: The MI300X was released on 2023-12-05, and the Arc Graphics 32EU was released on 2024-10-23.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 81.72 TFLOPS dwarfs the Arc Graphics 32EU's 998.4 GFLOPS. In FP16, the MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Arc Graphics 32EU provides 1.997 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The MI300X's texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s and its 192 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth make it suited for memory-hungry compute workloads. The Arc Graphics 32EU wins in display capability: it supports modern graphics APIs and features motherboard-dependent display outputs, whereas the MI300X has no outputs at all. The Arc Graphics 32EU also wins decisively on power draw at 65 W versus 750 W, and it is smaller, with a 243 mm² die versus 1017 mm².

The Arc Graphics 32EU's pixel rate of 15.60 GPixel/s, despite having only 8 ROPs, confirms it can drive basic display output. The MI300X's pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s reinforces its role as a compute accelerator without rasterization hardware. The Arc Graphics 32EU's production status is Active, while the MI300X's is not listed. The MI300X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the Arc Graphics 32EU's predecessor is HD Graphics-M. Neither product lists a successor.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI300X | Intel Arc Graphics 32EU |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe-LPG |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 73.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 1950 MHz |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 19,456 | 256 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 16 |

| ROPs | 0 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 15.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 31.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 998.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 1.997 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2024-10-23 |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | HD Graphics-M |

The two products share no common fields beyond manufacturer foundry (both use TSMC) and a null launch MSRP. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process with a far larger die and higher transistor density. The Arc Graphics 32EU uses a 3 nm process but packs far fewer transistors into a smaller area. The MI300X's memory subsystem is fixed and massive; the Arc Graphics 32EU's memory depends entirely on the host system. The MI300X has no ROPs and cannot render pixels, while the Arc Graphics 32EU has 8 ROPs and a measurable pixel rate. The MI300X's FP16 throughput matches its FP32 exactly at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Arc Graphics 32EU's FP16 is double its FP32 at a 2:1 ratio, indicating different compute prioritization. The MI300X requires a 1150 W suggested PSU, while the Arc Graphics 32EU lists none, consistent with its integrated nature. The MI300X connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, the Arc Graphics 32EU via Ring Bus. The MI300X has no graphics API support, while the Arc Graphics 32EU supports the latest DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan versions.