AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc Pro A60 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the Geekbench OpenCL score of the AMD Instinct MI300X compared to the Intel Arc Pro A60?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel Arc Pro A60 scores 63,485. This gives the AMD part a 400.9% advantage in that test.

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

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X sits at the 100th percentile, meaning it ranks above all other GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc Pro A60 sits at the 88th percentile.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Pro A60 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60 has an average benchmark score of 60,326, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 averages 60,347. The delta is 0%, indicating they are statistically tied.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro A60 uses 12 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 192-bit bus and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro A60 support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc Pro A60 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI300X has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the Intel Arc Pro A60 boosts to 2050 MHz. The difference is 50 MHz in favor of the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300X and Intel Arc Pro A60 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process, featuring the Aqua Vanjaram chip with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The transistor density reaches 150.4 million per mm². This is a compute-optimized accelerator with no display outputs, no API support for graphics workloads, and an OAM Module slot width.

The Intel Arc Pro A60 uses the Xe-HPG architecture on TSMC's 6 nm process, featuring the DG2-256 chip with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die. The transistor density is 42.8 million per mm². This is a conventional graphics card with a single-slot form factor and 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the Arc Pro A60 includes 16 ray tracing cores. The MI300X also has no ROPs, resulting in a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, whereas the Arc Pro A60 has 64 ROPs and a 131.2 GPixel/s pixel rate. The texture rates differ substantially: the MI300X delivers 2,553.6 GTexel/s from 1216 TMUs, while the Arc Pro A60 delivers 262.4 GTexel/s from 128 TMUs.

Shading unit counts reflect the compute focus of each design. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, while the Arc Pro A60 has 2,048. FP32 performance follows accordingly: 81.72 TFLOPS for the AMD part versus 8.397 TFLOPS for the Intel part. The FP16 ratios differ too, with the MI300X at 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) and the Arc Pro A60 at 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and connectivity also diverge. The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and requires a 1150 W suggested PSU, with no power connectors because it uses an OAM Module interface. The Arc Pro A60 has a 130 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU, using a standard PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head test: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Instinct MI300X wins that test with a 400.9% higher score. There are no tests where the Intel Arc Pro A60 wins against the MI300X.

However, the Arc Pro A60 has its own strengths outside compute throughput. It supports graphics APIs, includes ray tracing hardware, and provides display outputs. The MI300X has no graphics capabilities at all. For workloads involving rendering, video output, or API-based graphics, only the Arc Pro A60 is viable.

The MI300X wins in raw compute, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. Its 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the Arc Pro A60's 12 GB of GDDR6 with 384.0 GB/s. For large data sets in AI inference or scientific computing, the MI300X's memory subsystem is decisive.

The Arc Pro A60 wins in operating efficiency. Its 130 W TDP is dramatically lower than the MI300X's 750 W. It also requires a 300 W suggested PSU versus 1150 W. For workstation deployments with space and power constraints, the Arc Pro A60 is the more practical option.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300X | Intel Arc Pro A60 |

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

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | DG2-256 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 11,500 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 269 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 42.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 384.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 128 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None listed | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 131.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 262.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 8.397 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.0 |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-06-05 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, while the Intel Arc Pro A60 scores 63,485. The delta is 400.9% in favor of the AMD part. This is a massive gap that reflects the fundamental scale difference between the two products.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each GPU adds context. The MI300X's closest competitors are all NVIDIA data center parts. The NVIDIA H200 NVL averages 334,891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X. The NVIDIA B200 averages 345,482, which is 8% higher. The NVIDIA L40S averages 295,763, which is 7.5% lower. The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation averages 287,237, which is 10.7% lower.

The Arc Pro A60's nearest rivals are a mix of consumer and workstation GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 averages 60,347, essentially identical to the Arc Pro A60's 60,326 with a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 averages 60,140, which is 0.3% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M averages 61,896, which is 2.5% higher. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 averages 58,657, which is 2.8% lower.

The Arc Pro A60 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 57,166, which the MI300X cannot match because it has no Vulkan support. This shows the Arc Pro A60 can handle graphics workloads that the MI300X cannot execute at all.

The MI300X's average benchmark score is 317,994, placing it at the 100th percentile. The Arc Pro A60's average is 60,326, placing it at the 88th percentile. Both parts outperform the majority of GPUs, but the MI300X sits at the absolute top of the database.

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300X is a compute accelerator designed for the highest possible throughput. Its 400.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL over the Arc Pro A60 confirms its dominance in compute workloads. The 192 GB memory capacity and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth make it suitable for massive data sets. Its 100th percentile ranking means no GPU in the database scores higher on average.

The Intel Arc Pro A60 is a workstation graphics card with a different purpose. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. Its 16 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing. It ranks at the 88th percentile, tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 in average score.

The data indicates two distinct markets. The MI300X belongs in compute clusters where OpenCL throughput, memory bandwidth, and capacity are paramount. The Arc Pro A60 belongs in workstations where graphics rendering, display output, and API compatibility matter. The MI300X has no display outputs and no graphics API support, so it cannot replace the Arc Pro A60 in visual workloads. The Arc Pro A60 cannot approach the MI300X's compute performance.

The release dates show the MI300X arrived on 2023-12-05, six months after the Arc Pro A60's 2023-06-05 launch. Both parts remain relevant in their respective domains. The production status of the Arc Pro A60 is listed as Active, while the MI300X's status is not specified in the database.

For compute-intensive AI training, scientific simulation, and data processing, the MI300X is the clear choice based on its 100th percentile ranking and overwhelming benchmark lead. For graphics workstations, CAD, video editing, and any task requiring a display output, the Arc Pro A60 is the only option between the two. The data does not support using either part outside its intended role.