AMD Instinct MI300X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300X and Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem represent two distinct approaches to the accelerator market, with the AMD part built on a 5 nm TSMC process and the Intel part using a 10 nm Intel process. The recorded data shows a single benchmark entry for the MI300X, while the Intel part has no recorded benchmark scores, which shapes the comparative analysis.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one benchmark result for the AMD Instinct MI300X, the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it scores 317,994 points. This result places the MI300X at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating that it outperforms every other recorded graphics processor in this specific test. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, leaving its average benchmark score at zero and its percentile at 50, which is the median position when no measured data is present.

Comparing the MI300X to its nearest rivals provides context for this score. The NVIDIA H200 NVL achieves an average score of 334,891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X, making it the only listed rival that surpasses the AMD part. The NVIDIA B200 follows with an average score of 345,482, which is 8% higher than the MI300X, although this rival is not directly listed in the nearest rivals set. The MI300X leads against the other two listed rivals: the NVIDIA L40S scores 295,763, which is 7.5% lower, and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287,237, which is 10.7% lower. The delta percentages show that the MI300X sits in the middle of this competitive range, trailing the H200 NVL and B200 while clearly ahead of the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem lacks any comparable benchmark data, so no direct head-to-head numerical comparison can be made with the MI300X. The absence of scores for the Intel part means the database cannot confirm a win for either side in this test, and the wins counter for both items remains at zero. The analysis therefore relies on the MI300X’s measured performance against its named rivals, rather than a direct comparison to the Intel part.

FAQ

Q: What is the recorded Geekbench OpenCL score for the AMD Instinct MI300X?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 points in the Geekbench OpenCL test, placing it at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile of 50, which represents the median position when no measured data exists.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to the NVIDIA H200 NVL?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL has an average score of 334,891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X, making it the closest rival that outperforms the AMD part in the recorded data.

Q: Which rivals does the MI300X beat in the benchmark data?

A: The MI300X beats the NVIDIA L40S, which scores 295,763 and is 7.5% lower, and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation, which scores 287,237 and is 10.7% lower.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel part?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has an average benchmark score of 0, since no benchmark entries are recorded for it.

Q: What does the 100th percentile ranking mean for the MI300X?

A: The 100th percentile ranking indicates that the MI300X’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994 is higher than every other GPU’s score in the database, although the H200 NVL and B200 rivals show higher average scores in their own entries.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with the CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses the Ponte Vecchio chip with Generation 12.5 architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. It contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, with a transistor density of 78.1 million per mm². The AMD chip achieves a higher transistor density despite the smaller die, while the Intel chip uses a larger die with fewer transistors.

The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no raster output pipelines. The Intel part has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and also no raster output pipelines. The Intel part includes 128 ray tracing cores, while the MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed. Neither part has tensor cores listed in the database. The MI300X delivers a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Intel part delivers 1,638.4 GTexel/s. Both parts have a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming they are compute-focused accelerators without display output capabilities.

The memory architectures differ significantly. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus width and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses 128 GB of HBM2e memory with the same 8192-bit bus width but a lower 3.21 TB/s bandwidth. The memory clock differs as well: the MI300X runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed, while the Intel part runs at 1565 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective speed. The higher effective speed of the MI300X memory contributes to its greater bandwidth.

The MI300X has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan not listed. Both parts have no display outputs. The Intel part is marked as Active in production status, while the MI300X has no production status recorded. The Intel part lists its successor as H3C Graphics, while the MI300X lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct.

Specification Differences

The clock specifications differ between the two parts. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the Intel part has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. The MI300X operates at higher frequencies in both cases, with a 100 MHz advantage at base and a 500 MHz advantage at boost.

The floating-point performance reflects the clock and unit differences. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the Intel part delivers 52.43 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The MI300X has a 29.29 TFLOPS advantage in both precision formats.

The power specifications show a marked contrast. The MI300X has a thermal design power of 750 W with no power connectors and a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The Intel part has a thermal design power of 2400 W, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and requires a suggested power supply of 2800 W. The Intel part consumes three times the power of the AMD part.

The physical specifications differ. The MI300X is an OAM Module with no listed dimensions, while the Intel part is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm or 10.5 inches in length. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The MI300X has a memory size of 192 GB versus 128 GB for the Intel part, and the memory type differs: HBM3 versus HBM2e. The bandwidth differs by 2.11 TB/s in favor of the MI300X.

The release dates differ by nearly a year. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem was released on January 9, 2023, while the AMD Instinct MI300X was released on December 5, 2023. Neither part has a launch MSRP listed in the database.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Instinct MI300X is the measured performer in this comparison, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994 and a 100th percentile ranking. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has no recorded benchmark scores, so its performance cannot be verified from the database. The MI300X also holds advantages in core counts, clock speeds, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and floating-point throughput, all of which are recorded specifications.

The MI300X’s 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 output is 29.29 TFLOPS higher than the Intel part’s 52.43 TFLOPS, and its 192 GB HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth exceeds the Intel part’s 128 GB HBM2e with 3.21 TB/s bandwidth. The MI300X also uses less power at 750 W compared to 2400 W for the Intel part, and requires a smaller suggested power supply at 1150 W versus 2800 W.

The Intel part does have some notable characteristics. It includes 128 ray tracing cores, which the MI300X lacks, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 APIs, while the MI300X has no API support listed. The Intel part is also marked as Active in production status, and it has a defined physical form factor as a dual-slot 267 mm card, while the MI300X is an OAM Module with no dimensions listed.

For users relying on measured benchmark data, the MI300X is the only part with a recorded score, and that score places it at the top of the database. For users who require ray tracing support or API compatibility, the Intel part offers those features, but its performance is unverified. The verdict from the recorded data is that the MI300X delivers proven performance, while the Intel part remains unmeasured.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins in every measured and specified performance category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994 is the only recorded benchmark for either part, and it ranks at the 100th percentile. The MI300X also leads in shading units with 19,456 versus 16,384, texture units with 1,216 versus 1,024, and texture rate with 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 1,638.4 GTexel/s. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS exceeds the Intel part’s 52.43 TFLOPS in both formats.

The memory subsystem favors the MI300X decisively. It has 64 GB more memory, uses newer HBM3 technology instead of HBM2e, and delivers 2.11 TB/s more bandwidth. The effective memory speed of 5.2 Gbps on the MI300X exceeds the 3.1 Gbps on the Intel part, even though the Intel part runs at a higher memory clock of 1565 MHz versus 1300 MHz. The MI300X’s power efficiency also favors it, with a 750 W TDP compared to 2400 W, and a suggested power supply of 1150 W versus 2800 W.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem wins in areas outside raw compute performance. It includes 128 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the MI300X, making it the only part in this comparison with hardware ray tracing capability. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the MI300X has no API support recorded. The Intel part has an Active production status, indicating it remains available, while the MI300X has no production status listed. The Intel part also has a defined physical design as a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm, which may suit certain system layouts, while the MI300X is an OAM Module without listed dimensions.

The release timing favors the Intel part by a margin of nearly 11 months, as it was released on January 9, 2023, versus December 5, 2023 for the MI300X. The Intel part’s successor, H3C Graphics, is listed, while the MI300X has no successor recorded. The Intel part also uses a 10 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, whereas the MI300X uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, which explains part of the density difference. The data shows the MI300X wins on performance and efficiency, while the Intel part wins on feature completeness and availability status.