AMD Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc A580 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two accelerators shows a stark contrast in benchmark availability. The AMD Instinct MI308X has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, while the Intel Arc A580 delivers three completed tests. The Arc A580 achieves a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,229, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 91,657, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 79,381. These results place the Intel part at the 87th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 57,756.

The absence of benchmark data for the MI308X means there is no direct numerical head-to-head comparison available. The database shows zero wins for each side in head-to-head testing. The Arc A580's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM, which scores 58,085 (0.6% higher than the Arc A580), the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE at 57,367 (0.7% lower), the Intel Arc A570M at 58,239 (0.8% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 (1.1% higher). These deltas indicate that the Arc A580 sits in a tight competitive cluster, with its closest measured competitors within roughly one percentage point in either direction.

The MI308X holds a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, but this stems from its zero average benchmark score rather than from measured performance. The Arc A580, by contrast, has actual workload results that establish its standing. For synthetic DirectX 12 performance, the Steel Nomad score of 2,229 represents the Arc A580's strongest single-test result relative to its own suite. The OpenCL score of 91,657 is substantially higher than the Vulkan score of 79,381, suggesting compute-oriented workloads produce better results on this architecture than graphics-oriented API workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different design philosophies and market segments. The AMD Instinct MI308X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 153,000 million transistors onto a 1017 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The Intel Arc A580 uses the DG2-512 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 6 nm process. It contains 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, with a density of 53.4 million per mm². The MI308X therefore uses a smaller process node and packs over seven times the transistors onto more than double the die area.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The MI308X runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and boosts to 2100 MHz, while its memory operates at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective transfer. The Arc A580 starts higher at 1700 MHz base and reaches 2000 MHz boost, with memory at 2000 MHz and 16 Gbps effective. Despite the lower base clock, the MI308X has a higher boost ceiling.

Memory architecture could hardly be more different. The MI308X carries 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A580 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s. That is a tenfold difference in bus width and more than a tenfold difference in bandwidth, reflecting the MI308X's server-oriented design versus the Arc A580's consumer graphics positioning.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The MI308X features 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs and no ray tracing cores. The Arc A580 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 24 ray tracing cores. The MI308X's pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s, while the Arc A580 delivers 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI308X versus 384.0 GTexel/s for the Arc A580.

Floating-point throughput tells the performance story. The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same 81.72 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, indicating equal throughput across both precisions. The Arc A580 produces 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning half-precision runs twice as fast as single-precision. The MI308X leads in raw FP32 by a factor of roughly 6.6, and its FP16 output is 3.3 times higher than the Arc A580's.

Power and physical specifications reflect their different roles. The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, uses an OAM module form factor, and has no power connectors or display outputs. The Arc A580 draws 175 W with a suggested PSU of 450 W, uses a dual-slot design with two 8-pin power connectors, and provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. Interface generations also differ: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI308X versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the Arc A580.

FAQ

Q: Which product has more benchmark data available?

A: The Intel Arc A580 has three recorded benchmarks: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 2,229, Geekbench OpenCL at 91,657, and Geekbench Vulkan at 79,381. The AMD Instinct MI308X has no recorded benchmarks in the database.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The MI308X provides 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth through 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The Arc A580 provides 512.0 GB/s through 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for each?

A: The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Arc A580 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS. The MI308X also matches its FP32 figure in FP16 at 81.72 TFLOPS, whereas the Arc A580 doubles its FP32 rate to 24.58 TFLOPS in FP16.

Q: Which product supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A580 has 24 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI308X has no ray tracing cores and lists its DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A.

Q: What are the process nodes and die sizes?

A: The MI308X uses a 5 nm process with a 1017 mm² die and 153,000 million transistors. The Arc A580 uses a 6 nm process with a 406 mm² die and 21,700 million transistors.

Q: How does the Arc A580 rank against its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A580's average benchmark score of 57,756 is 0.6% below the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM, 0.7% above the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE, 0.8% below the Intel Arc A570M, and 1.1% below the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT. It sits at the 87th percentile among all GPUs.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every measurable specification. The MI308X uses a 5 nm process node; the Arc A580 uses 6 nm. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 21,700 million. Die sizes are 1017 mm² versus 406 mm². Transistor densities are 150.4M per mm² versus 53.4M per mm².

Base clocks: 1000 MHz for the MI308X, 1700 MHz for the Arc A580. Boost clocks: 2100 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Memory clocks: 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective versus 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity: 192 GB HBM3 versus 8 GB GDDR6. Bus widths: 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 19,456 versus 3,072. TMUs: 1,216 versus 192. ROPs: 0 versus 96. Ray tracing cores: none versus 24.

Pixel rates: 0 MPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rates: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 750 W versus 175 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus 2x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus 450 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: none versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

API support: the MI308X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan; the Arc A580 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates: December 5, 2023 for the MI308X, October 9, 2023 for the Arc A580. The MI308X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the Arc A580's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage. The Arc A580 has an Active production status; the MI308X does not have a recorded production status.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI308X wins in raw compute throughput and memory capacity. Its 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, combined with 192 GB of HBM3 memory and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, positions it for large-scale compute workloads. The 8192-bit memory bus and 1,216 TMUs support massive parallel data movement. The 750 W TDP and OAM module form factor indicate a data-center accelerator designed for sustained compute, not desktop graphics. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides higher host bandwidth than the Arc A580's PCIe 4.0 x16.

The Intel Arc A580 wins in graphics-oriented features and measured benchmark presence. Its 24 ray tracing cores and full DirectX 12 Ultimate support enable modern gaming workloads, while the 96 ROPs and 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate handle traditional rasterization. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 16 Gbps effective speed supports real-time rendering, and the display outputs allow direct connection to monitors. The 175 W TDP and dual-slot design make it suitable for standard desktop installations. Its three recorded benchmark scores establish measurable performance, with the OpenCL result of 91,657 being the highest single score in its suite.

The MI308X has no display outputs, no ROPs, and no ray tracing cores, meaning it cannot drive a monitor or accelerate ray-traced graphics. The Arc A580 lacks the memory capacity and raw FP32 throughput of the MI308X but offers a complete graphics feature set. The MI308X's zero benchmark scores mean its percentile ranking of 50 reflects an absence of data rather than competitive performance. The Arc A580's 87th percentile reflects actual measured results across three tests.

Use-case separation is clear. The MI308X targets compute-heavy environments where memory capacity, bandwidth, and FP16 throughput matter more than graphics output. The Arc A580 targets consumer graphics and light compute, with ray tracing, display outputs, and API compatibility as defining strengths. No head-to-head benchmark data exists to compare them directly, so the specification differences provide the only basis for differentiation.