AMD Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI308X and Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual occupy fundamentally different positions in the database, and their recorded specifications reflect that split. The MI308X is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, no raster operation units, and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. Its entire design targets data-center workloads where graphics output is irrelevant. The Arc Pro B60 Dual, by contrast, is a professional graphics card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, 80 raster operation units, and a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, making it suitable for visualization and rendering tasks.

In raw compute throughput, the MI308X dominates. Its FP32 rating of 81.72 TFLOPS is 6.65 times higher than the Arc Pro B60 Dual's 12.29 TFLOPS. The MI308X also delivers FP16 at 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel card reaches 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 via a 2:1 ratio. This means the AMD part maintains full-rate FP16 without the throughput penalty that the Intel architecture applies for half-precision work. For deep learning training, scientific simulation, or any workload that scales with raw floating-point operations, the MI308X holds a decisive advantage.

The Arc Pro B60 Dual wins in areas tied to graphics and display. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI308X lists N/A for all three APIs. The Intel card also has 20 ray tracing cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely. For professional visualization, CAD, or content creation that uses ray-traced effects, the Arc Pro B60 Dual is the only one of the two with functional graphics acceleration. The MI308X's 0 MPixel/s pixel rate confirms it cannot drive a display or rasterize geometry in any traditional sense.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also split the two clearly. The MI308X carries 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B60 Dual has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 456.0 GB/s. The AMD card offers 8 times the capacity and roughly 11.7 times the bandwidth. For large model inference, massive datasets, or memory-bound HPC kernels, the MI308X's memory subsystem is in a different class. The Intel card's 24 GB is more aligned with professional graphics workloads, where 24 GB is sufficient for high-resolution textures and complex scenes but nowhere near the scale of the MI308X.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The MI308X uses CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-focused architecture, built around the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The Arc Pro B60 Dual uses Xe2-HPG, Intel's gaming and professional graphics architecture, built around the BMG-G21 chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The MI308X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc Pro B60 Dual has 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, with a density of 72.1M per mm². The AMD chip is 3.74 times larger by die area and contains 7.81 times more transistors. This scale difference explains the massive gap in shading units: 19,456 on the MI308X versus 2,560 on the Intel part. Texture mapping units follow the same pattern, with 1,216 on the AMD card versus 160 on the Intel card.

Clock speeds reverse the expected order. The Intel card runs at a 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the AMD card sits at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The Intel part's higher base clock reflects its smaller, denser design that can sustain higher frequencies. The MI308X's lower base clock is typical for a large compute accelerator with enormous power draw and thermal constraints. The boost clocks are closer, but the Intel card still leads by 300 MHz.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI308X uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus, while the Arc Pro B60 Dual uses GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus. Effective memory speeds are 5.2 Gbps for the AMD card and 19 Gbps for the Intel card. Despite the Intel part's faster per-pin speed, the AMD card's massive bus width produces over 11 times the total bandwidth. The MI308X has no display outputs, no power connectors (it uses an OAM Module form factor), and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The Intel card is a dual-slot PCIe 5.0 x8 card with a 16-pin power connector, 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and full API support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark scores for either card, and both have an average benchmark score of 0 with a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, meaning no standardized tests have been run that directly compare these two accelerators. This absence of measured data forces the analysis to rely on specification-derived comparisons, which are still informative.

The most striking gap is in FP32 throughput. The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, which is 6.65 times the Arc Pro B60 Dual's 12.29 TFLOPS. In FP16, the MI308X again leads at 81.72 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS, a 3.32 times advantage. The MI308X's 1:1 FP16 ratio means it does not sacrifice half-precision performance, while the Intel card's 2:1 ratio implies it achieves FP16 by combining two FP32 operations. For mixed-precision workloads, the AMD card is strictly superior in raw throughput.

Texture rate favors the MI308X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, a 6.65 times difference that mirrors the FP32 ratio. Pixel rate, however, goes entirely to the Intel card: 192.0 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. This is not a close contest; the MI308X simply has no rasterization pipeline. Memory bandwidth shows a similar one-sided result: 5.32 TB/s for the AMD card versus 456.0 GB/s for the Intel card, an 11.67 times difference. The Intel card's 24 GB capacity is 12.5% of the AMD card's 192 GB.

The MI308X also leads in transistor count, die size, and shading units, while the Intel card leads in clock speeds, API support, display outputs, and power efficiency (400 W TDP versus 750 W TDP). The power draw difference is notable: the Intel card consumes 400 W, the AMD card consumes 750 W, and the suggested PSU ratings are 800 W and 1150 W respectively. The MI308X delivers more performance per watt in FP32 (108.96 TFLOPS per kW) versus the Intel card (30.73 TFLOPS per kW), but the Intel card is the only one that can render graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has 456.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The AMD card's bandwidth is approximately 11.7 times higher.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: Only the Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual can output video. It has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 connectors and a 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate. The AMD Instinct MI308X has no display outputs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, so it cannot drive a monitor.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has 20 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI308X has no ray tracing cores listed, and its API support for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan is listed as N/A.

Q: What is the difference in FP16 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it matches its FP32 rate. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves its FP32 rate to achieve FP16.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has a 750 W TDP and requires a suggested 1150 W PSU. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has a 400 W TDP and requires a suggested 800 W PSU. The AMD card draws nearly twice the power.

Q: What form factors do the cards use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X is an OAM Module with no power connectors and no display outputs. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual is a dual-slot card measuring 300 mm by 110 mm by 40 mm, with a single 16-pin power connector and 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct products for two distinct audiences. The AMD Instinct MI308X is a compute accelerator built for throughput. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, 192 GB HBM3, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 19,456 shading units place it in a performance class that the Intel card cannot approach for number-crunching workloads. The 750 W TDP and OAM Module form factor confirm it is meant for servers and data centers, not desktops. The lack of display outputs and API support means it exists solely to process data.

The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual is a professional graphics card. Its 24 GB GDDR6, 80 ROPs, 20 ray tracing cores, and 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it suitable for workstation visualization, CAD, and content creation. The 400 W TDP and dual-slot design allow it to fit into standard workstations. Its 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 is modest compared to the MI308X, but it offers something the AMD card cannot: the ability to render and display graphics with full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support.

The choice depends on workload. For AI training, HPC simulation, or any compute-heavy task where memory bandwidth and FP32 throughput are paramount, the MI308X is the only viable option. For professional graphics, ray-traced rendering, or any task requiring a display output, the Arc Pro B60 Dual is the only option. Neither card can substitute for the other. The database shows no benchmark overlap, and the specification gaps are so wide that any direct comparison would be meaningless. The MI308X wins on compute, memory, and bandwidth. The Arc Pro B60 Dual wins on graphics, display, and API support. The recorded data supports no other conclusion.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI308X | Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe2-HPG |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | BMG-G21 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 456.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 160 |

| ROPs | 0 | 80 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 400 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 800 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2025-09-04 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 1,199 USD |