AMD Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data separates these two processors by an enormous margin, but the split is not simply about speed. The AMD Instinct MI308X is an OAM module with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a thermal design power of 750 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is an integrated graphics processor with a 65 W TDP, active production status, and full API support including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part wins in every category related to general-purpose graphics output and system integration. The AMD part wins in every category related to raw compute throughput and memory capacity.

The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same 81.72 TFLOPS of FP16 performance with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.584 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The AMD part achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The Intel part achieves 56.00 GTexel/s texture rate and 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate.

The architecture names confirm the intended workloads. The AMD chip, Aqua Vanjaram, uses CDNA 3.0 architecture, which is a compute-focused design. The Intel chip, Meteor Lake, uses Xe-LPG architecture, which is a graphics-focused design. The AMD part belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation. The AMD part is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Intel part uses a 10 nm process at Intel with no recorded transistor count or die size.

The AMD part has no pixel rate because it has zero ROPs. That is a decisive hardware difference. A device with zero ROPs cannot rasterize frames for display. The Intel part has 16 ROPs and a pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s, which means it can drive a portable device display. The AMD part also lists no display outputs, while the Intel part lists display outputs as portable device dependent. These two facts alone determine which product is usable in a conventional graphics context.

The percentile fields in the database record both parts at percentile 50 versus all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 0 for each. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the wins counters are both 0. The database therefore contains no direct benchmark measurements for this pair. The analysis below relies on the recorded specification data, which is complete and internally consistent.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Instinct MI308X and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile are not competitors in any measurable sense. The AMD part is a compute accelerator with no graphics output capability. The Intel part is an integrated GPU designed for mobile systems with active production status. A user who needs display output, graphics API support, or a low-power integrated solution should select the Intel part. A user who needs massive FP32 or FP16 throughput, large memory capacity, or high memory bandwidth should select the AMD part.

The AMD part has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. It cannot run graphics applications through those APIs. It has no display outputs. It has zero ROPs. It is an OAM module with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. It targets server or datacenter compute workloads. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It is an IGP with a 65 W TDP and a ring bus interface. It targets laptops and portable devices.

The release dates are eight days apart. The AMD part released on December 5, 2023. The Intel part released on December 13, 2023. Both belong to the same general release window, but the product intents diverge completely.

The FP32 comparison is stark. The AMD part delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, which is 45.6 times the Intel part's 1.792 TFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is also stark. The AMD part delivers 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part delivers 3.584 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part's FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput, which indicates a compute-oriented design. The Intel part's FP16 throughput is double its FP32 throughput, which indicates a graphics-oriented design that uses packed math for shader workloads.

The memory comparison is similarly decisive. The AMD part has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The AMD part's memory clock is 1300 MHz, which translates to 5.2 Gbps effective. The Intel part has no dedicated memory clock because it uses system memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results for this pair. The headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty, and the wins counters are both 0. The comparison therefore relies on the recorded specification fields, which provide clear numerical differences.

The largest numerical win for the AMD part is in FP32 compute. The AMD Instinct MI308X records 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile records 1.792 TFLOPS. The AMD part is 45.6 times higher in this metric. The FP16 comparison shows the AMD part at 81.72 TFLOPS versus the Intel part at 3.584 TFLOPS, a 22.8 times difference. The texture rate comparison shows the AMD part at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus the Intel part at 56.00 GTexel/s, a 45.6 times difference. The shading unit count shows the AMD part at 19,456 versus the Intel part at 512, a 38 times difference. The TMU count shows the AMD part at 1,216 versus the Intel part at 32, a 38 times difference.

The memory comparison is even more lopsided. The AMD part has 192 GB of HBM3, while the Intel part has system shared memory. The AMD part has an 8192-bit memory bus, while the Intel part has a system shared bus. The AMD part has 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth, while the Intel part has system dependent bandwidth. The AMD part's memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the Intel part has no dedicated memory clock.

The largest numerical win for the Intel part is in pixel rate. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile records 28.00 GPixel/s, while the AMD Instinct MI308X records 0 MPixel/s. The AMD part has zero ROPs, which explains the zero pixel rate. The Intel part has 16 ROPs, which enables its pixel output. This is the only rendering-specific metric where the Intel part records a positive number and the AMD part records zero.

The Intel part also wins in API support. The AMD part records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Intel part records DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part wins in display outputs, recording portable device dependent, while the AMD part records no outputs. The Intel part wins in production status, recording active, while the AMD part has no recorded production status.

The clock comparison is mixed. The AMD part has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1750 MHz. The AMD part has a higher base clock by 700 MHz and a higher boost clock by 350 MHz. However, the Intel part's lower clocks come with a 65 W TDP, while the AMD part's higher clocks come with a 750 W TDP.

The process node comparison favors the AMD part. The AMD part uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel part uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The AMD part records 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel part records no transistor count, no die size, and no transistor density.

FAQ

Q: Which product has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X records 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile records 1.792 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD part is 45.6 times higher in FP32 throughput.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI308X output video to a display?

A: No. The AMD part records no display outputs and has zero ROPs with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. It also records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. The Intel part records portable device dependent display outputs and a pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s.

Q: What memory configuration does each product use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory clock.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two products?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a TDP of 65 W and no recorded suggested PSU. The AMD part is an OAM module with no power connectors, while the Intel part is an IGP.

Q: Which product supports graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI308X records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the release dates for both products?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X released on December 5, 2023. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile released on December 13, 2023. The AMD part's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, and the Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI308X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip with Xe-LPG architecture. The AMD part belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation.

The AMD part is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC and contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The transistor density is 150.4M per mm². The Intel part is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel, with no recorded transistor count, die size, or transistor density.

The AMD part has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and zero ROPs. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part has no recorded RT cores or tensor cores. The Intel part also has no recorded RT cores or tensor cores. The AMD part achieves a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel part achieves a texture rate of 56.00 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s.

The AMD part's FP32 and FP16 throughput are identical at 81.72 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part's FP32 throughput is 1.792 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 3.584 TFLOPS, indicating a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part's memory subsystem uses HBM3 with 192 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part's memory subsystem is system shared, with system dependent bandwidth.

The AMD part has no graphics API support, recording N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part has no display outputs. The Intel part has portable device dependent display outputs.

The AMD part is an OAM module with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel part is an IGP with no recorded power connectors and no suggested PSU. The AMD part uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The Intel part uses a ring bus interface. The AMD part has no recorded production status, while the Intel part is active.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in every recorded specification field except for the average benchmark score, which is 0 for both, and the percentile versus all GPUs, which is 50 for both. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty for both, and the wins counters are both 0.

The clock specifications differ. The AMD part has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1750 MHz. The AMD part has a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Intel part records its memory clock as system shared.

The memory specifications differ completely. The AMD part has 192 GB of HBM3, an 8192-bit bus width, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has system shared memory, system shared bus width, and system dependent bandwidth.

The processor specifications differ. The AMD part has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The Intel part has a pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 56.00 GTexel/s.

The compute specifications differ. The AMD part has FP32 of 81.72 TFLOPS and FP16 of 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1). The Intel part has FP32 of 1.792 TFLOPS and FP16 of 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1).

The power specifications differ. The AMD part has a TDP of 750 W, an OAM module slot width, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel part has a TDP of 65 W, an IGP slot width, no recorded power connectors, and no suggested PSU.

The bus interface differs. The AMD part uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The Intel part uses ring bus. The display outputs differ. The AMD part has no outputs. The Intel part has portable device dependent outputs.

The API support differs. The AMD part records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Intel part records DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The manufacturing data differs. The AMD part uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 153,000 million transistors, a 1017 mm² die size, and a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel part uses a 10 nm process at Intel, with no recorded transistor count, die size, or transistor density.

The release data differs. The AMD part released on December 5, 2023, with a predecessor of Radeon Instinct. The Intel part released on December 13, 2023, with a predecessor of HD Graphics-M. The production status differs. The AMD part has no recorded production status. The Intel part is active. Neither product has a recorded launch MSRP.