AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single OpenCL benchmark result for the AMD Instinct MI300X, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has no recorded benchmark scores. The MI300X posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. This means the MI300X sits at the absolute top of the recorded performance distribution, with no other tested GPU exceeding its score in the dataset.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50, indicating that no performance measurements are available for it in the database. Direct head-to-head comparisons between these two accelerators therefore cannot be expressed as delta percentages from actual test results. What can be analyzed is how the MI300X positions against its nearest recorded rivals, which provides context for where the AMD part stands in the broader accelerator landscape.

The MI300X trails the NVIDIA B200 by 8% (334,891 versus 317,994) and the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% (334,891 versus 317,994). Against the NVIDIA L40S, the MI300X leads by 7.5% (295,763 versus 317,994), and it holds a 10.7% advantage over the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237 versus 317,994). These deltas show the MI300X operating within a tight band near the top of the database, competitive with the highest-scoring accelerators while maintaining a clear margin over the next tier down.

Because the Intel part has no benchmark entries, the head-to-head section must rely on architectural and specification comparisons rather than measured performance deltas. The data indicates that any performance discussion involving the Max 1100 is inherently limited to theoretical capability inferred from its hardware configuration, not from validated test scores.

# Where Each One Wins

For the AMD Instinct MI300X, the recorded data supports a decisive win in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output is 81.72 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output matches at 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, also at a 1:1 ratio. The MI300X therefore provides roughly 3.7 times the floating-point throughput in both precision formats, a substantial margin for compute-heavy workloads.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also favor the AMD part decisively. The MI300X carries 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 5.32 TB/s bandwidth across an 8192-bit bus. The Intel part offers 48 GB of HBM2e memory with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth, also on an 8192-bit bus. The MI300X provides four times the memory capacity and more than four times the bandwidth. For workloads that fit within 48 GB, the Intel part remains viable, but datasets exceeding that capacity require the AMD solution.

The texture rate tells a similar story. The MI300X achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s from its 1,216 texture mapping units, while the Intel Max 1100 reaches 694.4 GTexel/s from 448 TMUs. Both parts report 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, as neither is designed for traditional rasterized graphics output. Neither accelerator has display outputs, confirming their role as compute-focused data center products.

The Intel part does hold advantages in certain areas. Its 300 W TDP is substantially lower than the MI300X's 750 W, and its suggested power supply is 700 W versus 1,150 W for the AMD part. The Intel card is a dual-slot form factor with a 267 mm (10.5 inches) length and a single 12-pin power connector, whereas the AMD module uses an OAM form factor with no power connectors listed. For systems with power or physical space constraints, the Intel accelerator is the more accommodating option.

The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 APIs, while the AMD part reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. This suggests the Intel accelerator is the only one of the two with any recorded graphics API compatibility, even though it has no display outputs.

# Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip on Generation 12.5 architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. It contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, for a density of 78.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip achieves nearly double the transistor density despite its smaller die area, a direct consequence of the more advanced process node.

The MI300X packs 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, while the Max 1100 has 7,168 shading units and 448 TMUs. Interestingly, the Intel part lists 56 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part reports none. Neither part reports tensor core counts. Both use an 8192-bit memory bus, but the AMD part pairs it with HBM3 while the Intel part uses HBM2e.

Clock behavior differs notably. Both parts have a 1000 MHz base clock, but the AMD part boosts to 2100 MHz while the Intel part tops out at 1550 MHz. Memory clocks also diverge: the MI300X runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the Max 1100 runs at 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective. The AMD part's higher boost clock and faster memory contribute directly to its compute and bandwidth advantages.

The AMD part belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation with the Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, and it was released on 2023-12-05. The Intel part belongs to the Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) generation, has no recorded predecessor, and was released on 2023-01-09. The Intel part is listed as Active in production status, and its successor is listed as H3C Graphics. The AMD part has no recorded production status or successor.

# FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X delivers 5.32 TB/s bandwidth from its 192 GB HBM3 memory, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 provides 1.23 TB/s from 48 GB of HBM2e. Both use an 8192-bit memory bus.

Q: How do the FP32 compute capabilities compare?

A: The MI300X achieves 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Max 1100 achieves 22.22 TFLOPS FP32. Both parts report identical FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 figures.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The AMD chip reaches 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Intel chip reaches 78.1 million per square millimeter on a 10 nm Intel process. The AMD chip has 153,000 million transistors on 1017 mm², and the Intel chip has 100,000 million transistors on 1280 mm².

Q: Does either accelerator support graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Max 1100 lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support. The AMD MI300X reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Neither part has display outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP with a 1150 W suggested power supply. The Max 1100 has a 300 W TDP with a 700 W suggested power supply. The Intel part uses a single 12-pin power connector, while the AMD OAM module lists no power connectors.

Q: Which part has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Max 1100 includes 56 ray tracing cores. The AMD MI300X reports no ray tracing cores.

# Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD part uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 153,000 million transistors and a 1017 mm² die. The Intel part uses a 10 nm Intel process with 100,000 million transistors and a 1280 mm² die. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for AMD versus 78.1M per mm² for Intel.

Clock speeds: both start at 1000 MHz base, but the MI300X boosts to 2100 MHz versus 1550 MHz for the Max 1100. Memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective) for Intel. Memory configuration: 192 GB HBM3 versus 48 GB HBM2e, with 5.32 TB/s versus 1.23 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources: 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs for AMD versus 7,168 shading units and 448 TMUs for Intel. The Intel part has 56 ray tracing cores; the AMD part has none. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s. Both report 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. FP32 and FP16 are 81.72 TFLOPS for AMD versus 22.22 TFLOPS for Intel.

Power and physical specifications: 750 W TDP with OAM module slot width for AMD versus 300 W TDP with dual-slot width for Intel. Suggested PSU is 1150 W versus 700 W. The Intel part uses one 12-pin power connector and measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length; the AMD part lists no power connectors and no dimensions. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 and have no display outputs.

Release dates: 2023-12-05 for AMD versus 2023-01-09 for Intel. Production status is unlisted for AMD and Active for Intel. The Intel part lists H3C Graphics as its successor; the AMD part lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor and no successor.

# The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Instinct MI300X dominates in every compute-related metric: FP32 and FP16 throughput are 3.7 times higher, memory capacity is four times larger, memory bandwidth is over four times greater, shading units are 2.7 times more numerous, and texture rate is 3.7 times higher. Its boost clock is 550 MHz higher, and its transistor density is nearly double. The MI300X also sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, outperforming the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%, while trailing the NVIDIA B200 by 8% and the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5%.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 offers no recorded benchmark scores, leaving its real-world performance unvalidated in the database. Its advantages are confined to power efficiency and physical integration: 300 W TDP versus 750 W, a 700 W suggested PSU versus 1150 W, dual-slot compatibility versus OAM module, and a 267 mm length that fits standard server layouts. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, and it includes 56 ray tracing cores, none of which the AMD part offers.

For workloads demanding maximum compute throughput, large memory capacity, and high bandwidth, the AMD Instinct MI300X is the only choice supported by the recorded data. Its 192 GB HBM3 pool and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth accommodate large model and dataset footprints that would exceed the Intel part's 48 GB HBM2e capacity. For deployments constrained by power budgets or physical chassis requirements, the Intel Max 1100 presents a lower-demand alternative, though its performance remains unmeasured in the database. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the MI300X is the higher-performance accelerator by every measured specification, while the Max 1100 is the more power-conscious, conventionally shaped option with no benchmark evidence to establish its compute standing.