AMD Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc 130V Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two GPUs compared in this analysis?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X, an OAM module designed for accelerated computing, and the Intel Arc 130V Mobile, an integrated graphics processor for laptops.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X boosts to 2100 MHz, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile boosts to 1850 MHz.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses System Shared memory, making its bandwidth System Dependent.

Q: Which GPU was released earlier?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X was released on December 5, 2023. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile followed on September 23, 2024.

Q: What API support does the Intel Arc 130V Mobile provide?

A: It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI308X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile's transistor count is listed as unknown, with a die size of 172 mm².

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, relies on a massive 1017 mm² die with 153,000 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses the Xe2-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. Its die measures 172 mm², and its transistor density is not recorded.

The AMD part is an OAM Module with no display outputs and no power connectors, drawing 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The Intel part is an IGP with no separate power connectors, consuming 37 W, and its display outputs are Portable Device Dependent.

The AMD Instinct MI308X implements 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, with a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, 28 ROPs, and 7 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 51.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 103.6 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The AMD Instinct MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. Memory clock is 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses System Shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth listed as System Shared and System Dependent respectively.

Clocks also diverge. The AMD base clock is 1000 MHz, boosting to 2100 MHz. The Intel base is 300 MHz, boosting to 1850 MHz. FP32 compute is 81.72 TFLOPS for AMD, with FP16 at 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1). The Intel part delivers 3.315 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.630 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

The production status for AMD is not recorded, while Intel is listed as Active. The AMD generation is Instinct (MIx), with predecessor Radeon Instinct. The Intel generation is Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake), with predecessor HD Graphics-M. Neither has a successor listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark scores for either GPU in the head-to-head comparison. Both have an average benchmark score of 0, and the wins count is 0 for each. The nearest rivals lists are empty for both parts.

Without measured benchmark results, the recorded specifications serve as the only quantitative comparison. The FP32 compute delta is substantial: the AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS versus 3.315 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc 130V Mobile. This indicates the AMD part is oriented toward compute throughput at a scale the integrated Intel solution cannot approach.

Texture rate also shows a wide gap. The AMD part records 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Intel part records 103.6 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is inverted: AMD shows 0 MPixel/s, while Intel shows 51.80 GPixel/s, reflecting the AMD part's lack of ROPs and absence of display outputs.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive split. The AMD part's 5.32 TB/s is fixed and deterministic, while the Intel part's bandwidth is System Dependent, meaning it varies with the host laptop's memory configuration. The AMD part's 192 GB capacity is a fixed quantity, whereas the Intel part shares system memory with no dedicated pool.

Clock behavior differs as well. The AMD base clock of 1000 MHz is more than three times the Intel base of 300 MHz. Boost clocks are closer: 2100 MHz versus 1850 MHz, a 250 MHz difference in favor of AMD.

Power draw is recorded but not analyzed as a performance metric. The AMD part lists 750 W TDP, the Intel part 37 W TDP.

The Verdict

The data shows two devices built for entirely different purposes. The AMD Instinct MI308X is a compute-focused OAM module with no display outputs, no ROPs, and a 750 W TDP. It targets workloads that require massive memory bandwidth, 192 GB of HBM3, and high FP32 throughput at 81.72 TFLOPS. Its boost clock of 2100 MHz and base clock of 1000 MHz support sustained compute activity, and its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface allows host connection in a server context.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is an integrated GPU with a 37 W TDP, 7 ray tracing cores, and full API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s and 28 ROPs indicate it can drive display output, and its display outputs are Portable Device Dependent, meaning it is designed for laptops. Its FP32 throughput of 3.315 TFLOPS is a fraction of the AMD part, but its role is different.

The verdict is not a winner in the conventional sense. The AMD Instinct MI308X wins on raw compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and FP32 performance. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile wins on power efficiency, pixel rate, ray tracing support, and API compatibility. A user needing a display output cannot use the AMD part, as it has none. A user needing server-grade compute cannot use the Intel part, as its memory and throughput are far below the AMD part.

The release dates show the AMD part arrived first, on December 5, 2023, with the Intel part following on September 23, 2024. Both occupy the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, though this percentile is based on an average benchmark score of 0 for both.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in every major specification category.

Process node: AMD uses 5 nm, Intel uses 3 nm. Foundry is TSMC for both.

Die size: AMD is 1017 mm², Intel is 172 mm². Transistor count: AMD is 153,000 million, Intel is unknown. Transistor density: AMD is 150.4M per mm², Intel is not recorded.

Base clock: AMD 1000 MHz, Intel 300 MHz. Boost clock: AMD 2100 MHz, Intel 1850 MHz. Memory clock: AMD 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), Intel System Shared.

Memory size: AMD 192 GB, Intel System Shared. Memory type: AMD HBM3, Intel System Shared. Bus width: AMD 8192 bit, Intel System Shared. Bandwidth: AMD 5.32 TB/s, Intel System Dependent.

Shading units: AMD 19,456, Intel 896. TMUs: AMD 1,216, Intel 56. ROPs: AMD 0, Intel 28. Ray tracing cores: AMD null, Intel 7.

Pixel rate: AMD 0 MPixel/s, Intel 51.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate: AMD 2,553.6 GTexel/s, Intel 103.6 GTexel/s.

FP32: AMD 81.72 TFLOPS, Intel 3.315 TFLOPS. FP16: AMD 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1), Intel 6.630 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: AMD 750 W, Intel 37 W. Slot width: AMD OAM Module, Intel IGP. Power connectors: AMD None, Intel null. Suggested PSU: AMD 1150 W, Intel null.

Bus interface: AMD PCIe 5.0 x16, Intel IGP. Display outputs: AMD No outputs, Intel Portable Device Dependent.

APIs: AMD DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A. Intel DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4.

Production status: AMD null, Intel Active. Release date: AMD December 5, 2023, Intel September 23, 2024. Predecessor: AMD Radeon Instinct, Intel HD Graphics-M.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI308X wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its FP32 output of 81.72 TFLOPS is approximately 24.6 times the Intel part's 3.315 TFLOPS. Texture rate favors AMD at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 103.6 GTexel/s. Memory capacity favors AMD at 192 GB versus System Shared. Memory bandwidth favors AMD at 5.32 TB/s versus System Dependent. The 8192-bit bus width is a fixed high-bandwidth path, while the Intel part relies on shared system memory.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile wins in display and graphics pipeline scenarios. Its 28 ROPs and 51.80 GPixel/s pixel rate allow actual rendering to a screen, while the AMD part has 0 ROPs and no display outputs. The 7 ray tracing cores provide hardware ray tracing support, which the AMD part lacks. API support is complete on Intel (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), while AMD lists N/A for all three.

Power draw favors Intel decisively. The 37 W TDP versus 750 W means the Intel part is suited to battery-powered laptops, while the AMD part requires a server power delivery system with a suggested 1150 W PSU. The Intel part's production status is Active, indicating current availability, while the AMD part's status is not recorded.

The process node favors Intel at 3 nm versus 5 nm, and the die size is dramatically smaller at 172 mm² versus 1017 mm². The Intel part's base clock of 300 MHz allows low-power idle states, while its 1850 MHz boost provides reasonable peak performance for an integrated solution.

The AMD part wins on every raw compute and memory metric. The Intel part wins on every display, API, and power metric. The choice depends on whether the workload requires server compute or mobile graphics.