AMD Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc Pro B65 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI308X or the Intel Arc Pro B65. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. Without measured performance data, the head-to-head comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences documented in the database.

The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio. The Intel Arc Pro B65 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The FP32 gap is substantial: the MI308X provides roughly 6.65 times the raw single-precision throughput. The FP16 comparison shows a different relationship: the MI308X offers 81.72 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS, a 3.32 times advantage, but the Intel part achieves its FP16 figure through a 2:1 rate conversion while the AMD part runs FP16 at the same rate as FP32.

Texture throughput follows the compute hierarchy. The MI308X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Arc Pro B65 reaches 384.0 GTexel/s. The pixel rate tells the opposite story: the MI308X records 0 MPixel/s, meaning it has no raster output stages, while the Arc Pro B65 records 192.0 GPixel/s from its 80 ROPs. The MI308X has zero ROPs, which eliminates any pixel fill capacity. The Arc Pro B65 has 80 ROPs, giving it a functioning display and raster pipeline.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors the AMD accelerator. The MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, producing 5.32 TB/s. The Arc Pro B65 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus, producing 608.0 GB/s. The bandwidth ratio is approximately 8.75 to 1 in favor of the MI308X. Capacity also differs by a factor of six: 192 GB versus 32 GB.

Clock behavior diverges significantly. The MI308X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The Arc Pro B65 runs at a flat 2400 MHz for both base and boost. The Intel part sustains a higher clock, but the AMD part compensates with a much wider execution resource pool: 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs versus 2,560 shading units and 160 TMUs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI308X wins in every compute-oriented metric recorded in the database. FP32 and FP16 throughput are higher by the margins described above. Texture rate is higher, memory bandwidth is higher, and memory capacity is larger. The 8192-bit bus width combined with HBM3 gives the MI308X a data path that suits massive parallel workloads. The 153,000 million transistor count on a 1017 mm² die indicates a design built for dense computation.

The Intel Arc Pro B65 wins in every graphics-output and rasterization metric. It has 80 ROPs and produces 192.0 GPixel/s, while the MI308X produces zero pixels per second. The Arc Pro B65 includes 20 ray tracing cores, which the MI308X does not list. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Arc Pro B65 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the MI308X has no display outputs.

Clock speed is another category where the Intel part leads. The Arc Pro B65 maintains 2400 MHz base and boost, compared to the MI308X's 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The Intel part also has a lower transistor density at 72.1M per mm² versus 150.4M per mm², but it uses a smaller die (272 mm² versus 1017 mm²) and far fewer transistors (19,600 million versus 153,000 million).

Power efficiency cannot be directly calculated from the database, but the recorded TDP figures show the Arc Pro B65 at 200 W and the MI308X at 750 W. The suggested PSU rating is 550 W for the Intel part and 1150 W for the AMD part. The Intel card uses a single 8-pin power connector and a dual-slot form factor, while the MI308X uses an OAM module with no power connectors listed.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates two devices with almost no functional overlap. The AMD Instinct MI308X is an accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no pixel pipeline. Its 0 MPixel/s pixel rate and zero ROPs confirm it cannot render frames. Its strength lies entirely in FP32, FP16, texture, and memory throughput for compute tasks.

The Intel Arc Pro B65 is a graphics card in the conventional sense. It has display outputs, full graphics API support, ray tracing cores, and a complete raster pipeline. Its FP32 throughput of 12.29 TFLOPS is modest relative to the MI308X, but its 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 performance give it a role in rendering and graphics workloads.

A user or system integrator choosing between these two should base the decision on whether the task requires display output and graphics rendering or pure compute throughput. The MI308X offers 6.65 times the FP32 throughput and 8.75 times the memory bandwidth. The Arc Pro B65 offers the only path to a display, the only graphics API support, and the only ray tracing capability in this comparison. There is no middle ground in the database: one device has a pixel rate, the other has none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, compared to 12.29 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Pro B65.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI308X have any display outputs?

A: No. The database lists "No outputs" for display outputs, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 has 32 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B65 includes 20 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI308X does not list any ray tracing cores.

Q: What graphics APIs does the AMD Instinct MI308X support?

A: The database records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan on the MI308X. The Intel Arc Pro B65 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the TDP values compare?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel Arc Pro B65 has a TDP of 200 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI308X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip based on CDNA 3.0 architecture, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. The Intel Arc Pro B65 uses the BMG-G21 chip based on Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes differ enormously: 153,000 million transistors on 1017 mm² for AMD, 19,600 million on 272 mm² for Intel. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for AMD and 72.1M per mm² for Intel.

The AMD part has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, but zero ROPs and no ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 20 ray tracing cores. The MI308X has no graphics API support recorded, while the Arc Pro B65 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The MI308X uses HBM3 memory with a 5.32 TB/s bandwidth and a 1300 MHz memory clock (5.2 Gbps effective). The Arc Pro B65 uses GDDR6 with a 608.0 GB/s bandwidth and a 2375 MHz memory clock (19 Gbps effective). The AMD part has an 8192-bit bus, the Intel part a 256-bit bus.

The MI308X is an OAM module with no power connectors, while the Arc Pro B65 is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin connector. The MI308X has no display outputs, while the Arc Pro B65 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The release dates differ: the MI308X launched on December 5, 2023, and the Arc Pro B65 on March 31, 2026. The MI308X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, while the Arc Pro B65 has no predecessor recorded. The Arc Pro B65 has an "Active" production status, while the MI308X has none recorded.

Specification Differences

The two devices differ in nearly every recorded specification. The process node is the same (5 nm TSMC), and both use PCIe 5.0 x16 as the bus interface, but everything else diverges.

Clocks: the MI308X has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc Pro B65 has a 2400 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for AMD and 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) for Intel.

Memory: 192 GB HBM3 versus 32 GB GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 608.0 GB/s.

Compute resources: 19,456 shading units versus 2,560. TMUs: 1,216 versus 160. ROPs: 0 versus 80. Ray tracing cores: none listed versus 20.

Rates: pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for AMD and 192.0 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s for AMD and 384.0 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32 is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16 is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power: TDP is 750 W versus 200 W. Suggested PSU is 1150 W versus 550 W. The MI308X has no power connectors, while the Arc Pro B65 uses one 8-pin connector. Slot width is OAM Module versus Dual-slot.

Display and APIs: the MI308X has no outputs and no API support. The Arc Pro B65 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Other fields: transistor count is 153,000 million versus 19,600 million. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 272 mm². Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² versus 72.1M per mm². Release dates are December 5, 2023 versus March 31, 2026. Production status is not recorded for the MI308X and "Active" for the Arc Pro B65. The MI308X has a listed predecessor (Radeon Instinct), while the Arc Pro B65 does not. Neither part has a successor listed, and neither has a launch MSRP in the database.