AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one recorded benchmark result for the AMD Instinct MI300X, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 has no recorded benchmark scores. The single data point for the MI300X is a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, which places it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Arc Pro B370 sits at the 50th percentile by default, with an average benchmark score of zero due to missing measurements.

Against its nearest rivals, the MI300X shows a mixed competitive picture. It trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5 percent, as that rival posts an average score of 334,891. The gap to the NVIDIA B200 is larger at 8 percent, with the B200 scoring 345,482. Conversely, the MI300X leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5 percent, since the L40S averages 295,763. It also beats the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7 percent, which scores 287,237.

These deltas reveal that the MI300X occupies a strong but not top-tier position among accelerators. The performance advantage over the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada Generation is meaningful, while the deficit to the H200 NVL and B200 is modest in percentage terms. The lack of any benchmark data for the Arc Pro B370 means no direct head-to-head comparison can be drawn from measurements. The database records zero wins for either product in this pairing, which reflects the absence of a common benchmark suite rather than a performance verdict.

Where Each One Wins

For the AMD Instinct MI300X, the data supports a clear win in raw compute workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994 is among the highest recorded in the database, sitting above the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 7.5 and 10.7 percent respectively. This indicates strength in general-purpose GPU compute tasks that scale with shading units, texture units, and memory bandwidth. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same figure for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which suggests balanced throughput for mixed-precision workloads. Its 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth from 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus provides substantial data movement capacity, a critical factor for large model inference and training.

The Intel Arc Pro B370, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark wins. Its architecture targets a different segment entirely. The B370 uses system shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is system dependent rather than fixed. Its FP32 output is 6.144 TFLOPS, and FP16 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, which indicates a design favoring half-precision throughput. The B370 includes 10 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, pointing toward graphics and client-side rendering tasks rather than datacenter compute. The MI300X has no display outputs and no graphics API support, so it cannot be used for rendering or display workloads. The B370 wins in the category of integrated graphics capability, as it is designated as an IGP with portable device dependent outputs.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Instinct MI300X compare to its closest rival in raw compute score?

A: The MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL. It trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5 percent and the NVIDIA B200 by 8 percent, but leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5 percent and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7 percent.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B370 have any benchmark results in the database?

A: No. The B370 has an empty benchmark list and an average benchmark score of zero. Its percentile is recorded as 50, but this is a default placement rather than a measured ranking.

Q: What memory configuration does each product use?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width.

Q: Can either product output video to a display?

A: The MI300X has no display outputs. The B370 has display outputs described as portable device dependent, meaning it can drive displays in supported portable systems.

Q: What are the power requirements for each product?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The B370 has a TDP of 25 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which product supports ray tracing?

A: The B370 includes 10 ray tracing cores. The MI300X has no listed ray tracing cores, and its API support is marked as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every measurable specification. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The B370 uses a 3 nm process from Intel, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. Transistor density for the MI300X is 150.4 million per square millimeter; no density figure exists for the B370.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The MI300X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz or 5.2 Gbps effective. The B370 has a 300 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, with system shared memory providing no dedicated clock. Shading units number 19,456 on the MI300X versus 1,280 on the B370. Texture mapping units are 1,216 versus 40. The MI300X has zero ROPs, while the B370 has 20. Ray tracing cores are absent on the MI300X but present as 10 on the B370.

Pixel and texture rates highlight the different design goals. The MI300X reports 0 MPixel/s pixel rate and 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate. The B370 delivers 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300X versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the B370. FP16 shows 81.72 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio for the MI300X, while the B370 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio.

Power and form factor differ completely. The MI300X consumes 750 W and uses an OAM Module slot with no power connectors, requiring a 1150 W suggested PSU. The B370 draws 25 W, fits as an IGP, has no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X and IGP for the B370. Display outputs are absent on the MI300X and portable device dependent on the B370. API support is N/A for the MI300X, while the B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. The B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture with the Panther Lake chip, belonging to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: CDNA 3.0 targets datacenter compute acceleration, while Xe3-LPG targets integrated graphics in mobile or portable systems.

Process nodes differ, with TSMC 5 nm for the MI300X and Intel 3 nm for the B370. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, an enormous chip by any measure. The B370's transistor count and die size are unknown, but its lower shading unit count and 25 W TDP indicate a much smaller implementation. Memory architecture is another major divergence: the MI300X has dedicated HBM3 with fixed bandwidth, while the B370 relies on system shared memory, making its performance dependent on the host platform.

Feature sets reflect their target markets. The MI300X has no graphics API support, no display outputs, and no ray tracing cores. It is a pure compute accelerator. The B370 includes ray tracing cores, a full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, plus display outputs. The B370's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM, which indicates a lineage from integrated graphics solutions. The MI300X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, placing it in a line of dedicated accelerators. Production status for the B370 is active, while the MI300X has no listed production status. Release dates also differ, with the MI300X launching on December 5, 2023, and the B370 on January 26, 2026.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation of purpose. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a high-throughput compute accelerator with a massive memory pool and bandwidth, designed for workloads that demand extreme parallel processing. Its benchmark score of 317,994 places it above several NVIDIA datacenter parts, including the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada Generation, while trailing the H200 NVL and B200 by single-digit percentages. The 750 W power draw and OAM Module form factor confirm it belongs in server racks, not desktop systems.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 is an integrated graphics processor with modest compute output and low power consumption. Its 25 W TDP, system shared memory, and support for modern graphics APIs position it for portable devices where battery life and space matter more than absolute throughput. The lack of benchmark data means no performance claims can be made from measurements, but the specification differences alone show it is not a competitor to the MI300X in compute capacity.

For buyers needing datacenter-class compute, the MI300X is the only viable choice between these two. For systems requiring integrated graphics with ray tracing and display output, the B370 serves that role. The MI300X cannot render frames or drive displays, and the B370 does not approach the MI300X's FP32 throughput or memory bandwidth. The selection depends entirely on the workload: compute acceleration versus integrated graphics. The recorded data offers no scenario where both products compete for the same task.