AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc Pro B50 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Instinct MI300X?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X records an average benchmark score of 317,994. This places it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms every other recorded GPU.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Pro B50 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 has an average benchmark score of 2,660. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 with a score of 2,662, a difference of -0.1%. It sits just ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440, which scores 2,645, a 0.6% delta.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X comes with 192 GB of HBM3 memory, while the Intel Arc Pro B50 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 memory. The MI300X also has a much wider memory bus at 8192 bits versus 128 bits for the Arc Pro B50.

Q: What is the launch date for each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X was released on December 5, 2023. The Intel Arc Pro B50 was released on September 4, 2025.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B50 support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc Pro B50 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI300X has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) for each card?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The Intel Arc Pro B50 has a TDP of 70 W with a suggested power supply of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300X and Intel Arc Pro B50 represent two fundamentally different design philosophies in the GPU landscape. The MI300X uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built specifically for compute acceleration. The Arc Pro B50 uses Intel's Xe2-HPG architecture with the BMG-G21 chip, designed for professional graphics and rendering workloads.

The manufacturing processes reveal a stark contrast in complexity. Both chips are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors onto a massive 1017 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The Arc Pro B50, by comparison, contains 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, with a density of 72.1 million per mm². The MI300X's transistor count is roughly 7.8 times higher, and its die area is about 3.7 times larger.

Memory architecture differs completely. The MI300X uses HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and delivers 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, while the Arc Pro B50 uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI300X's bandwidth advantage is approximately 23.7 times greater, which is critical for large-scale compute tasks. The Arc Pro B50's smaller memory footprint and narrower bus are typical for a professional graphics card targeting workstation tasks.

The compute resources show a similar disparity. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs or ray tracing cores. The Arc Pro B50 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The MI300X's FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Arc Pro B50 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS, a ratio of about 7.7 to 1. Interestingly, the MI300X's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), whereas the Arc Pro B50 doubles its FP16 rate to 21.30 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), indicating different precision handling strategies.

Power requirements diverge sharply. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and requires a 1150 W power supply, reflecting its data-center orientation. The Arc Pro B50 operates at 70 W with a 250 W suggested power supply, making it suitable for standard workstation builds. The MI300X is an OAM module with no display outputs, while the Arc Pro B50 is a dual-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the Intel Arc Pro B50. Instead, the database contains separate benchmark suites for each card, measuring different performance aspects.

The MI300X's sole recorded benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 317,994. This result places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning no other recorded GPU achieves a higher average score. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA B200, scores 345,482, which is 8% higher, while the NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891, 5% higher. The MI300X outperforms the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% (295,763) and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% (287,237).

The Arc Pro B50 has a different benchmark profile, with results spanning multiple tests. Its highest individual score comes from Passmark G3D at 12,553, followed by Passmark GPU Compute at 6,037. In DirectX tests, it scores 144 in DirectX 9, 100 in DirectX 11, 64 in DirectX 12, and 58 in DirectX 10. The Passmark G2D test yields 717. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1,604. The average across all these benchmarks is 2,660, placing it at the 17th percentile of all GPUs.

The Arc Pro B50's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER at 2,690 (1.1% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M at 2,664 (0.2% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 at 2,662 (0.1% higher). It edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 by 0.6% (2,645). These small percentage differences indicate that the Arc Pro B50 sits in a particular performance tier that is far removed from the MI300X's position at the top of the database.

The absence of shared benchmarks means a direct score comparison is not possible. However, the percentile rankings tell the story: the MI300X sits at 100th percentile, while the Arc Pro B50 sits at 17th. The MI300X's single benchmark score of 317,994 is over 119 times higher than the Arc Pro B50's average of 2,660, though these numbers come from different tests and should not be treated as a direct apples-to-apples comparison.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category in the database.

• Chip and architecture: The MI300X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Arc Pro B50 uses the BMG-G21 chip with Xe2-HPG architecture.
• Transistor count: 153,000 million for the MI300X versus 19,600 million for the Arc Pro B50.
• Die size: 1017 mm² for the MI300X versus 272 mm² for the Arc Pro B50.
• Transistor density: 150.4 million per mm² for the MI300X versus 72.1 million per mm² for the Arc Pro B50.
• Base clock: 1000 MHz for the MI300X versus 1700 MHz for the Arc Pro B50.
• Boost clock: 2100 MHz for the MI300X versus 2600 MHz for the Arc Pro B50.
• Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the MI300X versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the Arc Pro B50.
• Memory size: 192 GB HBM3 versus 16 GB GDDR6.
• Memory bus width: 8192 bits versus 128 bits.
• Memory bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 224.0 GB/s.
• Shading units: 19,456 versus 2,048.
• Texture mapping units: 1,216 versus 128.
• ROPs: 0 for the MI300X versus 16 for the Arc Pro B50.
• Ray tracing cores: None for the MI300X versus 16 for the Arc Pro B50.
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s for the MI300X versus 41.60 GPixel/s for the Arc Pro B50.
• Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 332.8 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 10.65 TFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 21.30 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: 750 W versus 70 W.
• Slot width: OAM Module versus Dual-slot.
• Power connectors: None for both, but the MI300X has no display outputs while the Arc Pro B50 has four mini-DisplayPort 2.1.
• Suggested power supply: 1150 W versus 250 W.
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X versus PCIe 5.0 x8 for the Arc Pro B50.
• API support: The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the Arc Pro B50 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.
• Dimensions: The Arc Pro B50 measures 167 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 40 mm in width; the MI300X has no recorded dimensions.
• Production status: The MI300X has no recorded status, while the Arc Pro B50 is listed as Active.
• Release date: December 5, 2023 for the MI300X versus September 4, 2025 for the Arc Pro B50.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994 puts it at the 100th percentile, and it leads its nearest rivals by margins ranging from 5% to 10.7%. The card's massive 192 GB HBM3 memory pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth positions it for workloads that require enormous data sets and high throughput, such as large-scale AI training and scientific simulation. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 1:1 FP16 ratio indicate sustained compute capability across precision formats.

The Intel Arc Pro B50 wins in areas related to graphics output and API compatibility. It has four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, enabling multi-display professional workstations, while the MI300X has no display outputs at all. The Arc Pro B50 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with graphics-intensive applications. Its 16 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced workloads, a feature entirely absent from the MI300X. The card's dual-slot form factor and 70 W TDP allow installation in standard workstation chassis, unlike the OAM module form factor of the MI300X.

The Arc Pro B50 also wins on efficiency in certain contexts. Its 70 W TDP is roughly 10.7 times lower than the MI300X's 750 W TDP, and its suggested power supply of 250 W is significantly more modest than the 1150 W requirement for the MI300X. For professional graphics tasks like CAD, video editing, and 3D rendering, the Arc Pro B50's combination of display outputs, API support, and ray tracing cores makes it a functional choice.

In terms of raw score magnitude, the MI300X's single benchmark result of 317,994 dwarfs the Arc Pro B50's average of 2,660. However, the benchmark types differ, and the MI300X's score comes from a compute-oriented OpenCL test, while the Arc Pro B50's results span DirectX, G2D, G3D, and compute tests. The Arc Pro B50's best individual score of 12,553 in Passmark G3D reflects its graphics rendering capability.

The Verdict

The data presents two products with entirely different intended use cases. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a data-center compute accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 750 W power draw. Its 100th percentile standing and 317,994 Geekbench OpenCL score confirm its position as a top-tier compute device. The card's 192 GB HBM3 memory and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth serve workloads that demand massive memory capacity and throughput. The MI300X should be selected for high-performance compute environments where graphics output is irrelevant and where the 1150 W suggested power supply can be accommodated.

The Intel Arc Pro B50 is a professional graphics card with a 70 W TDP, four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 17th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 2,660 place it among entry-level professional GPUs, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 and Quadro K1100M. The card's 16 GB GDDR6 memory, 16 ray tracing cores, and dual-slot design make it suitable for workstation graphics tasks. Its launch MSRP is 349 USD.

Users requiring pure compute acceleration with maximum memory bandwidth should choose the MI300X, as its benchmark data shows top-percentile performance. Users needing a display-capable graphics card with modern API support and modest power requirements should choose the Arc Pro B50. The two cards do not compete in the same market segment, and the recorded data confirms that each serves a distinct role in the hardware ecosystem.