AMD Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for the AMD Instinct MI308X against the Intel Arc A380E. Both parts have empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and no nearest rivals listed. The wins count sits at zero for each side. This absence of measured performance data means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification records captured in the database.

What the data does show is a massive disparity in raw compute resources. The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at exactly 19.95 times the FP32 output of the Intel part, a figure derived directly from the recorded values. In FP16, the difference takes a different shape: the MI308X lists 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the A380E lists 8.192 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The AMD accelerator leads by 9.97 times in FP16, but the Intel GPU achieves its FP16 number by halving the FP32 rate, meaning the A380E's FP16 advantage over its own FP32 is only 2:1, whereas the MI308X maintains full rate.

Texture rate further separates the two. The MI308X records 2,553.6 GTexel/s against 128.0 GTexel/s for the A380E, a 19.95 times lead identical to the FP32 ratio because both derive from the same shading unit and TMU counts. Pixel rate, however, reverses the relationship. The MI308X lists 0 MPixel/s with zero ROPs, while the A380E lists 64.00 GPixel/s with 32 ROPs. The AMD board is a compute accelerator with no raster output stage, and the Intel part is a conventional graphics processor with full display and raster capabilities.

Memory bandwidth follows the expected split. The MI308X records 5.32 TB/s across an 8192-bit HBM3 interface, while the A380E records 186.0 GB/s across a 96-bit GDDR6 interface. The AMD part leads by 28.6 times in raw bandwidth. Memory capacity differs by 32 times: 192 GB against 6 GB. Clock behavior is also distinct. The MI308X runs a 1000 MHz base with a 2100 MHz boost, while the A380E runs a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD part's boost clock is only 5% higher than the Intel part's fixed clock, yet the MI308X achieves its massive throughput through 19,456 shading units versus 1,024.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X lists 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc A380E lists 4.096 TFLOPS. The MI308X leads by a factor of 19.95.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI308X lists no RT cores and records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan APIs.

Q: What is the memory configuration on each board?

A: The MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has display outputs?

A: Only the Intel Arc A380E has display outputs, with 4x DisplayPort 2.0. The AMD Instinct MI308X records no outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements recorded for each?

A: The MI308X has a 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The A380E has a 75 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both list no power connectors.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc A380E records 64.00 GPixel/s with 32 ROPs. The AMD Instinct MI308X records 0 MPixel/s with 0 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI308X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Both come from the same foundry, but the process nodes differ by one generation step.

Transistor counts reveal the scale gap. The MI308X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The A380E packs 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding 45.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD part has 21.25 times more transistors and a 6.48 times larger die, plus a 3.28 times higher transistor density. The MI308X die size of 1017 mm² is extreme for a single package, while the A380E's 157 mm² is typical for a mid-range graphics processor.

The shading engine differs fundamentally. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, but zero ROPs. The A380E has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD part has 19 times more shading units and 19 times more TMUs, but the Intel part has 32 ROPs where the AMD part has none. This reflects the divergent design goals: the MI308X is a pure compute accelerator for data center workloads, while the A380E is a complete graphics solution with rasterization and display capabilities.

Ray tracing hardware exists only on the Intel side, with 8 RT cores listed. The MI308X records null for RT cores. API support follows the same split. The A380E lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X records N/A for all three. The AMD accelerator does not expose graphics APIs. The Intel part is production status end-of-life with a successor named Battlemage, while the MI308X has no production status recorded and a predecessor of Radeon Instinct.

The memory subsystem differs in type and organization. The MI308X uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus, while the A380E uses GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus. The AMD part's memory clock is listed at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the Intel part lists 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective. The A380E runs its memory at a higher clock and a higher effective data rate per pin, but the MI308X's enormous bus width dominates the bandwidth calculation.

Specification Differences

The process node differs: 5 nm for the MI308X versus 6 nm for the A380E. The MI308X has a 1017 mm² die size against 157 mm² for the A380E. Transistor density records 150.4 million per square millimeter for the AMD part and 45.9 million for the Intel part.

Clock speeds show a 2000 MHz base for the A380E against a 1000 MHz base for the MI308X. Boost clocks list 2100 MHz for the AMD part and 2000 MHz for the Intel part. Memory clocks list 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective for the MI308X and 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective for the A380E.

Memory capacity: 192 GB versus 6 GB. Memory type: HBM3 versus GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 96 bit. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 19,456 versus 1,024. TMUs: 1,216 versus 64. ROPs: 0 versus 32. RT cores: none listed versus 8. The MI308X lists no tensor core count, and the A380E also lists null for tensor cores.

Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS at 1:1 versus 8.192 TFLOPS at 2:1.

TDP: 750 W versus 75 W. Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus 250 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus Single-slot. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: none versus 4x DisplayPort 2.0.

The A380E records physical dimensions of 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width. The MI308X records null for all dimensions. Release dates differ: the MI308X launched on 2023-12-05, and the A380E launched on 2024-03-31. The A380E has a production status of end-of-life and a successor named Battlemage. The MI308X lists no production status and no successor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI308X wins in every compute-oriented category recorded in the database. FP32 throughput leads by 19.95 times. FP16 throughput leads by 9.97 times. Texture rate leads by 19.95 times. Memory bandwidth leads by 28.6 times. Memory capacity leads by 32 times. The MI308X also carries a larger transistor budget by 21.25 times and a higher transistor density by 3.28 times. For workloads that depend on massive parallel floating-point execution, large memory pools, and extreme bandwidth, the MI308X is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The Intel Arc A380E wins in every graphics-oriented category. It has 32 ROPs against zero, enabling a 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate where the MI308X records 0 MPixel/s. It has 8 ray tracing cores where the MI308X lists none. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI308X records no graphics API support. It has 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the MI308X has no display outputs. The A380E also runs at a higher base clock (2000 MHz versus 1000 MHz) and a higher memory clock (1937 MHz versus 1300 MHz), which suits latency-sensitive graphics workloads.

Power efficiency favors the Intel part. The A380E records a 75 W TDP against 750 W for the MI308X, a tenfold difference. The suggested PSU is 250 W against 1150 W. For FP32 per watt, the A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS divided by 75 W, while the MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS divided by 750 W. The MI308X achieves 0.10896 TFLOPS per watt and the A380E achieves 0.05461 TFLOPS per watt, meaning the AMD part is 1.99 times more efficient in FP32 per watt despite the much higher absolute power draw.

The form factor also splits the use cases. The MI308X uses an OAM Module slot width, suitable for server racks with dedicated power delivery. The A380E is single-slot with a 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width, fitting standard desktop chassis. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI308X versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the A380E. The AMD part has a wider and newer interface, while the Intel part uses a narrower but adequate interface for its bandwidth needs.

The Verdict

The recorded data describes two devices with almost no functional overlap. The AMD Instinct MI308X is a compute accelerator with 19,456 shading units, 192 GB of HBM3, 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, and no display or raster hardware. The Intel Arc A380E is a graphics card with 1,024 shading units, 6 GB of GDDR6, 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth, 32 ROPs, 8 RT cores, and four DisplayPort outputs.

A user or system integrator selecting between these parts should base the choice on the workload type. If the task requires FP32 or FP16 compute at scale, large memory residency, or extreme memory bandwidth, the MI308X dominates by factors ranging from 9.97 to 32 times. The data shows no scenario where the A380E competes on raw compute throughput. For machine learning training, scientific simulation, or data center inference with large model footprints, the MI308X is the only viable option from these two.

If the task requires rendering, rasterization, ray tracing, or display output, the A380E is the only option. The MI308X cannot output video, has no ROPs, and supports no graphics APIs. The A380E provides a complete graphics stack with DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, plus 64.00 GPixel/s fill rate and 8 RT cores.

The power envelope separates deployment scenarios. The A380E fits a 75 W slot with a 250 W suggested PSU, making it suitable for compact or low-power systems. The MI308X requires a 750 W TDP and a 1150 W suggested PSU, demanding enterprise power infrastructure. The MI308X is an OAM module, not a desktop card, while the A380E is a standard single-slot PCIe card.

Both parts hold a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database, and both have zero average benchmark scores. The percentile field does not differentiate them. The release dates are close, with the MI308X arriving on 2023-12-05 and the A380E on 2024-03-31. The A380E is already end-of-life with a Battlemage successor, while the MI308X has no successor recorded.

The choice is not a matter of preference but of required function. For compute, the MI308X. For graphics, the A380E. The data does not support any crossover use case.