AMD Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the AMD Instinct MI308X?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X is a data center accelerator built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, using the Aqua Vanjaram chip. It is part of the Instinct (MIx) generation and was released on 2023-12-05.

Q: What is the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe-LPG architecture, built into the Arrow Lake-S chip. It belongs to the Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake) generation and was released on 2024-10-23.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The MI308X uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, and the Intel part uses a 3 nm process from TSMC.

Q: What benchmark data exists for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU?

A: The database records a single benchmark for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. This places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. No benchmark scores are recorded for the AMD Instinct MI308X, which sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of 0.

Q: Which rivals are closest to the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU in benchmark performance?

A: The nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, both with equal scores of 733 (0% delta). The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723 (1.4% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751 (2.4% faster).

Q: What are the power requirements of each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has a TDP of 65 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Architecture Differences

The two products occupy opposite ends of the GPU design spectrum. The AMD Instinct MI308X is a discrete accelerator built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. It uses 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is an integrated graphics solution built on the Xe-LPG architecture with the Arrow Lake-S chip, fabricated on a 3 nm TSMC process. It uses 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 73.3M per mm².

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Graphics 64EU uses system shared memory, with a system dependent bus width and bandwidth. The MI308X has no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the Arc Graphics 64EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The compute configurations show the scale gap. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The Arc Graphics 64EU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 30.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 60.80 GTexel/s. The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the Arc Graphics 64EU delivers 1.946 TFLOPS of FP32 and 3.891 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1).

The interface and physical format also differ. The MI308X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface and comes as an OAM Module with no power connectors. The Arc Graphics 64EU uses a Ring Bus interface, is an IGP, and has motherboard-dependent display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI308X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS is roughly 42 times the 1.946 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU. The texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 60.80 GTexel/s shows the same pattern. The MI308X also provides dedicated HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, whereas the Arc Graphics 64EU depends on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so the MI308X is suited for workloads where sustained memory throughput is the limiting factor.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU wins in integrated graphics practicality. It is an IGP with a 65 W TDP, requires no dedicated power connectors, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X has no display outputs and no graphics API support, making it unsuitable for any rendering task that requires a visible output or a standard graphics API. The Arc Graphics 64EU also has a working pixel rate of 30.40 GPixel/s, while the MI308X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

The Intel part is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark results in the database. Its single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733 places it at the 3rd percentile, and its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU at identical scores. The MI308X has no recorded benchmarks and an average score of 0, so no direct measured comparison can be made from the database.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products:

• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 (AMD) versus Xe-LPG (Intel)
• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram (AMD) versus Arrow Lake-S (Intel)
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake)
• Process Node: 5 nm (AMD) versus 3 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: 153,000 million (AMD) versus 17,800 million (Intel)
• Die Size: 1017 mm² (AMD) versus 243 mm² (Intel)
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² (AMD) versus 73.3M / mm² (Intel)
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz (AMD) versus 300 MHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 2100 MHz (AMD) versus 1900 MHz (Intel)
• Memory Clock: 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective (AMD) versus System Shared (Intel)
• Memory Size: 192 GB HBM3 (AMD) versus System Shared (Intel)
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit (AMD) versus System Shared (Intel)
• Memory Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s (AMD) versus System Dependent (Intel)
• Shading Units: 19,456 (AMD) versus 512 (Intel)
• TMUs: 1,216 (AMD) versus 32 (Intel)
• ROPs: 0 (AMD) versus 16 (Intel)
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s (AMD) versus 30.40 GPixel/s (Intel)
• Texture Rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s (AMD) versus 60.80 GTexel/s (Intel)
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS (AMD) versus 1.946 TFLOPS (Intel)
• FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) (AMD) versus 3.891 TFLOPS (2:1) (Intel)
• TDP: 750 W (AMD) versus 65 W (Intel)
• Slot Width: OAM Module (AMD) versus IGP (Intel)
• Power Connectors: None (AMD) versus null (Intel)
• Suggested PSU: 1150 W (AMD) versus null (Intel)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 (AMD) versus Ring Bus (Intel)
• Display Outputs: No outputs (AMD) versus Motherboard Dependent (Intel)
• DirectX: N/A (AMD) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2) (Intel)
• OpenGL: N/A (AMD) versus 4.6 (Intel)
• Vulkan: N/A (AMD) versus 1.4 (Intel)
• Production Status: null (AMD) versus Active (Intel)
• Release Date: 2023-12-05 (AMD) versus 2024-10-23 (Intel)
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct (AMD) versus HD Graphics (Intel)
• Percentile Vs All GPUs: 50 (AMD) versus 3 (Intel)
• Average Benchmark Score: 0 (AMD) versus 733 (Intel)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Instinct MI308X and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU. The wins counters show 0 for both products. The only recorded benchmark belongs to the Intel part: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733.

That score places the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, both at 733 with a 0% delta, meaning the 64EU shows no measured advantage over its smaller siblings in this test. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails at 723, which is 1.4% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads at 751, which is 2.4% ahead. These results indicate that the Arc Graphics 64EU delivers roughly entry-level integrated graphics performance in the recorded workload.

For the AMD Instinct MI308X, the database holds no benchmark measurements. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile vs all GPUs is 50, but this value is not supported by any recorded test. The MI308X cannot be compared directly to the Arc Graphics 64EU on measured performance because no test results exist for it. The specification data, however, shows a large gap in compute resources, with the MI308X offering 38 times the shading units, 38 times the TMUs, and 42 times the FP32 throughput on paper.

The Verdict

The data supports a clean separation by use case. The AMD Instinct MI308X is designed for compute-heavy workloads that require massive FP32 throughput, a 5.32 TB/s HBM3 memory subsystem, and 192 GB of capacity, all wrapped in a 750 W OAM Module. Its lack of display outputs and absence of DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support confirms it is not intended for graphics rendering. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, by contrast, is an integrated part with a 65 W TDP, motherboard-dependent display outputs, and full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which makes it functional for everyday graphics tasks.

For buyers needing a data center accelerator with no rendering requirements, the MI308X is the only option of the two. For systems requiring integrated graphics with a standard API stack, the Arc Graphics 64EU is the only option. The benchmark record shows the Arc Graphics 64EU delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, matching the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU exactly, sitting 1.4% above the AMD Radeon HD 6470M and 2.4% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M. The MI308X has no measured scores, so its performance relative to those products cannot be stated from the database.