AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Instinct MI300X and the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile could not be more different in scope. The MI300X has a single Geekbench OpenCL score of 317994, placing it at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Intel part, by contrast, has no benchmark entries at all, with an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50. This means the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile cannot be directly compared on any metric that requires a recorded score, while the MI300X sits at the absolute top of the performance distribution.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the MI300X provides context for its score. The NVIDIA H200 NVL posts an average score of 334891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X. The NVIDIA B200 records 345482, an 8% advantage. On the other side, the NVIDIA L40S scores 295763, which is 7.5% lower than the MI300X, and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287237, a 10.7% deficit. The data indicates that the MI300X is competitive with the highest-tier data center accelerators, trailing only the two top NVIDIA parts in this specific test while comfortably outpacing the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada. Since the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has no benchmark scores, any head-to-head comparison in raw compute performance is impossible; the database simply contains no measurements for it.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two products is evident from the chip design onward. The AMD Instinct MI300X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip, built on Xe-LPG architecture, fabricated by Intel on a 10 nm process. The MI300X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation.

Transistor counts and die size further separate them. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel part has no recorded transistor count, die size, or density in the database. Clock behavior differs substantially: the MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile runs at 300 MHz base and 1800 MHz boost. Memory architecture is entirely different as well. The MI300X uses 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 Intel part uses System Shared memory, with System Shared type, bus width, and System Dependent bandwidth.

Compute resources show the scale difference. The MI300X has 19456 shading units, 1216 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate for the MI300X is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, while the Intel part achieves 14.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300X versus 43.20 GTexel/s for the Intel part. FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300X (with FP16 at 81.72 TFLOPS, a 1:1 ratio), whereas the Intel part delivers 1,382.4 GFLOPS FP32 and 2.765 TFLOPS FP16 (a 2:1 ratio). The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the MI300X has no recorded API support in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split in purpose. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a data center accelerator with no display outputs, no API support recorded, and a 750 W TDP. It uses an OAM Module slot width and has no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. Its bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 28 W TDP, a Ring Bus interface, and Portable Device Dependent display outputs. It is marked as Active in production status, while the MI300X has no production status recorded.

For compute-intensive workloads where the Geekbench OpenCL score matters, the MI300X is the only option with any data. Its 100th percentile rank and 317994 score indicate it is at the very top of the database, with only the NVIDIA H200 NVL and B200 exceeding it by 5% and 8% respectively. The Intel part, with no benchmarks and a 50th percentile rank, cannot be evaluated on the same scale. The MI300X also carries far more memory, bandwidth, shading units, and FP32 throughput, all of which are absent from the Intel part's profile. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile, however, has a significantly lower TDP, supports modern graphics APIs, and includes ROPs, making it suitable for display and graphics tasks in portable devices. The verdict from the data is that the MI300X is for high-performance compute with no display functionality, while the Intel part is for integrated graphics in mobile systems with API support and power efficiency.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products:

• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram (AMD) vs. Meteor Lake (Intel)
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 vs. Xe-LPG
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) vs. Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake)
• Process Node: 5 nm (TSMC) vs. 10 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC vs. Intel
• Transistors: 153,000 million vs. null
• Die Size: 1017 mm² vs. null
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² vs. null
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz vs. 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2100 MHz vs. 1800 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. 384
• TMUs: 1216 vs. 24
• ROPs: 0 vs. 8
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s vs. 14.40 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s vs. 43.20 GTexel/s
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS vs. 1,382.4 GFLOPS
• FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) vs. 2.765 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 750 W vs. 28 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. Portable Device Dependent
• APIs: DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A vs. DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4
• Production Status: null vs. Active
• Release Date: 2023-12-05 vs. 2023-12-13
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct vs. HD Graphics-M
• Benchmarks: One entry (317994) vs. none
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 100 vs. 50
• Avg Benchmark Score: 317994 vs. 0
• Nearest Rivals: NVIDIA H200 NVL, L40S, B200, RTX 6000 Ada vs. none

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has a recorded score of 317994, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has no benchmark entries in the database.

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

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334891 (5% higher), the NVIDIA B200 scores 345482 (8% higher), the NVIDIA L40S scores 295763 (7.5% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287237 (10.7% lower).

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X has N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: What are the TDP values for each GPU?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile rank among all GPUs?

A: The MI300X is at the 100th percentile, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is at the 50th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins in every compute-related category recorded in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is orders of magnitude above the Intel part's 1,382.4 GFLOPS. Texture rate favors the MI300X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 43.20 GTexel/s. Memory capacity, bandwidth, and bus width are all overwhelmingly in favor of the MI300X: 192 GB of HBM3 at 5.32 TB/s on an 8192-bit bus, versus System Shared memory for the Intel part. The 19456 shading units dwarf the 384 in the Intel part, and the 1216 TMUs outnumber the 24. The MI300X also has a higher boost clock at 2100 MHz versus 1800 MHz, and its 100th percentile rank confirms it sits at the top of the database.

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile wins in areas related to system integration and display functionality. It has 8 ROPs, while the MI300X has 0. Pixel rate is 14.40 GPixel/s for the Intel part, while the MI300X records 0 MPixel/s. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, all of which are N/A for the MI300X. It has display outputs described as Portable Device Dependent, whereas the MI300X has no outputs. The TDP is 28 W versus 750 W, and the slot width is IGP versus OAM Module, indicating it is designed for integration into mobile processors. The bus interface is Ring Bus, which is typical for integrated graphics, versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X. The Intel part is also marked as Active in production, while the MI300X has no production status recorded. The release date for the Intel part is 2023-12-13, eight days after the MI300X's 2023-12-05 release. The predecessor for the Intel part is HD Graphics-M, while the MI300X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct.