AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two accelerators is asymmetrical in coverage. The AMD Instinct MI300X has a single benchmark entry in the database, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, which places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs tested. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has no benchmark entries recorded, so its average benchmark score is zero and its percentile ranking sits at 50. Direct head-to-head comparison is therefore limited to the MI300X's measured result against its nearest rivals, which are all NVIDIA parts.

The MI300X trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which scores 334,891, by 5%. Against the NVIDIA B200, which leads the group at 345,482, the MI300X is 8% behind. On the other side, the MI300X beats the NVIDIA L40S, which scores 295,763, by 7.5%, and it leads the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation, which scores 287,237, by 10.7%. These deltas indicate that the MI300X sits in the upper tier of the database, ahead of workstation-class Ada parts but slightly behind the newest NVIDIA data center accelerators in raw OpenCL throughput. The Intel Max 1350 cannot be placed in this ordering because the database contains no measured score for it.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators diverge at nearly every architectural layer. The AMD Instinct MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 uses Generation 12.5 architecture on a 10 nm process at Intel. The MI300X's chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel part, codenamed Ponte Vecchio, contains 100,000 million transistors across a larger 1280 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 78.1M per mm². The MI300X achieves roughly double the transistor density of the Intel part, a direct consequence of the finer process node.

Compute resources also differ substantially. The MI300X carries 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, whereas the Max 1350 has 14,336 shading units and 896 TMUs. Both parts report zero ROPs and zero pixel rate, which is expected for accelerators with no display output. The Intel part lists 112 ray tracing cores, while the MI300X lists none. Neither accelerator lists tensor cores in the database.

Clock behavior shows a similar split. The MI300X runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and boosts to 2100 MHz. The Max 1350 has a 750 MHz base and a 1550 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the MI300X memory runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel part runs at 1200 MHz with 2.4 Gbps effective. The AMD part uses HBM3 memory totaling 192 GB across a 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses HBM2e, also on an 8192-bit bus, but with 96 GB capacity and 2.46 TB/s bandwidth. The MI300X therefore provides twice the memory capacity and more than twice the bandwidth of the Max 1350.

Peak compute rates follow the same pattern. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The Max 1350 delivers 44.44 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, also at 1:1. The AMD part's texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 1,388.8 GTexel/s for Intel. In every measured compute metric, the MI300X is roughly 80% to 90% ahead of the Max 1350.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Max 1350 has a TDP of 450 W and a suggested PSU of 850 W. Both cards use an OAM Module slot width and a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. Neither has display outputs. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 in its API list, while the MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Intel part's API support is notable given its role as a compute accelerator; the AMD part's API fields are all marked unavailable.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins on every measured specification where both parts have data. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is 84% higher than the Max 1350's 44.44 TFLOPS. Its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s is more than double the Intel part's 2.46 TB/s. Its 192 GB memory capacity is exactly double the Intel part's 96 GB. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is 84% higher than 1,388.8 GTexel/s. Its shading unit count of 19,456 is 36% higher than 14,336. The MI300X also has a higher boost clock (2100 MHz versus 1550 MHz) and a higher transistor density (150.4M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm²).

The Intel Max 1350's advantages are limited to a few areas. It has a lower TDP of 450 W versus 750 W, which implies lower peak power draw. It lists 112 ray tracing cores, which the MI300X does not have at all. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 APIs, whereas the MI300X lists none. It also has a larger die at 1280 mm² versus 1017 mm², although that larger die contains fewer transistors. The Intel part is marked as Active in production status, while the AMD part has no production status recorded. The Intel part's release date is earlier in the database, January 2023, compared to the MI300X's December 2023.

For workloads that depend on raw FP32 or FP16 compute, memory capacity, or memory bandwidth, the MI300X is the clear leader according to the recorded data. For workloads that value lower power draw, ray tracing capability, or standard graphics API support, the Max 1350 holds the advantage, though its compute and memory specifications are far below the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Instinct MI300X than the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 in FP32 compute?

A: The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Max 1350 delivers 44.44 TFLOPS FP32, making the AMD part 84% higher.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two accelerators?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on a 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Max 1350 has 96 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus with 2.46 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Max 1350 lists 112 ray tracing cores. The MI300X lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: Which accelerator has a higher boost clock?

A: The MI300X boosts to 2100 MHz, while the Max 1350 boosts to 1550 MHz.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two parts?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Max 1350 has a TDP of 450 W with a suggested PSU of 850 W.

Q: Does the Intel part support standard graphics APIs?

A: The Max 1350 lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI300X | Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Generation 12.5 |

| Process node | 5 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 100,000 million |

| Die size | 1017 mm² | 1280 mm² |

| Transistor density | 150.4M / mm² | 78.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 750 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2100 MHz | 1550 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) | 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 192 GB | 96 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3 | HBM2e |

| Memory bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 2.46 TB/s |

| Shading units | 19456 | 14336 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 896 |

| Ray tracing cores | None | 112 |

| Texture rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 1,388.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 44.44 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 44.44 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 450 W |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 850 W |

| DirectX support | N/A | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Release date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-01-09 |

| Production status | Not recorded | Active |

| Successor | Not recorded | H3C Graphics |

The Verdict

The database shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two accelerators. The AMD Instinct MI300X dominates every compute and memory metric recorded: higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, double the memory capacity, more than twice the bandwidth, a faster boost clock, and a higher transistor density. Its measured Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994 places it at the 100th percentile, with deltas ranging from 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S to 8% behind the NVIDIA B200. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has no recorded benchmark score, so its relative standing cannot be quantified beyond its 50th percentile placeholder.

The Intel part is not without recorded merits. Its 450 W TDP and 850 W suggested PSU make it the lower-power option. It is the only one of the two with ray tracing cores, and it is the only one with standard graphics API support in DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. Its larger die area of 1280 mm², despite fewer transistors, suggests a different packaging approach rather than a density advantage.

For buyers selecting purely on benchmark and specification data, the MI300X is the higher-performing accelerator in FP32, FP16, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. The Max 1350 is the choice only when lower power draw, ray tracing cores, or graphics API compatibility are the deciding factors. The MI300X's 84% lead in FP32 throughput and 116% lead in memory bandwidth over the Max 1350 are the defining margins in this comparison. The Max 1350's lack of any recorded benchmark score means its real-world standing remains unmeasured in this database, while the MI300X's single score anchors it firmly in the top percentile of all tested GPUs.