AMD Instinct MI308X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core differences between the AMD Instinct MI308X and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 uses Generation 12.5 architecture on Intel's 10 nm process. The AMD chip carries 153,000 million transistors, while the Intel chip carries 100,000 million.

Q: How do memory capacities and bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X features 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has 96 GB of HBM2e memory with 2.46 TB/s bandwidth. Both use an 8192-bit memory bus.

Q: What are the peak FP32 performance figures?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X reaches 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 reaches 44.44 TFLOPS FP32. Both deliver FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 figures.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each card?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X is rated at 750 W, with a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 is rated at 450 W, with a suggested power supply of 850 W.

Q: Do these cards have display outputs or rendering pipelines?

A: Neither card has display outputs. Both are OAM Module slot width devices with zero pixel rate. The AMD card reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the Intel card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the release dates for these accelerators?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 was released on 2023-01-09, and the AMD Instinct MI308X was released on 2023-12-05. The Intel card has a production status of Active and lists its successor as H3C Graphics.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI308X and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 represent two fundamentally different design approaches to data center acceleration. The AMD chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, a dedicated compute-focused design that omits traditional graphics rendering features. The Intel chip, codenamed Ponte Vecchio, uses Generation 12.5 architecture, which retains some graphics API support.

The manufacturing processes differ substantially. AMD uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry. This process gap helps explain the transistor density difference: AMD packs 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter across a 1017 mm² die, totaling 153,000 million transistors. Intel's chip spans a larger 1280 mm² die but holds only 100,000 million transistors, yielding a density of 78.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip achieves nearly double the transistor density despite having a smaller physical die.

Shader resources follow a similar pattern. The AMD Instinct MI308X includes 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 includes 14,336 shading units, 896 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The Intel card uniquely features 112 ray tracing cores, a component absent from the AMD specification. Both cards report 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, confirming neither is designed for rasterized display output.

Memory architectures diverge in generation and capacity. AMD pairs its chip with HBM3 memory totaling 192 GB, while Intel uses HBM2e totaling 96 GB. Both interfaces are 8192 bits wide, but the memory clock differs: AMD runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed, while Intel runs at 1200 MHz with 2.4 Gbps effective speed. The bandwidth gap is significant, with AMD reaching 5.32 TB/s against Intel's 2.46 TB/s.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD card has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 2100 MHz boost clock. The Intel card has a 750 MHz base clock and a 1550 MHz boost clock. These clock differences compound the architectural resource gap, pushing AMD's peak FP32 throughput to 81.72 TFLOPS compared to Intel's 44.44 TFLOPS. Texture rate shows a similar relationship: AMD delivers 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus Intel's 1,388.8 GTexel/s.

Power requirements mirror the performance gap. AMD draws 750 W and suggests a 1150 W power supply, while Intel draws 450 W and suggests an 850 W power supply. Both cards use PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interfaces and come in OAM Module form factors. Neither card has power connectors listed in the same manner, and both lack display outputs entirely.

The API support sets reveal their intended workloads. AMD lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating a pure compute accelerator. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, suggesting some degree of graphics compatibility. This difference reflects their architectural priorities: CDNA 3.0 focuses exclusively on compute workloads, while Generation 12.5 retains API hooks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI308X and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350. Both cards record zero benchmark entries, zero average benchmark scores, and zero wins in the head-to-head comparison. Their percentile rankings against all GPUs sit at 50 for both, indicating neither has accumulated enough measured data to shift its standing.

Without recorded benchmark scores, the comparison relies entirely on the specification data captured in the database. The FP32 compute figures provide the clearest measurable gap. AMD's 81.72 TFLOPS represents 83.9% higher throughput than Intel's 44.44 TFLOPS. This is the single largest proportional difference between the two cards across all comparable metrics.

Memory bandwidth offers the second-largest gap. AMD's 5.32 TB/s is 116.3% higher than Intel's 2.46 TB/s. For memory-bound workloads, this difference could translate into substantial performance advantages, though no benchmark data confirms this directly. The memory capacity difference follows a similar pattern: AMD's 192 GB doubles Intel's 96 GB, which could affect the size of datasets that fit in on-chip memory.

Texture rate differences are also pronounced. AMD's 2,553.6 GTexel/s exceeds Intel's 1,388.8 GTexel/s by 83.9%, matching the FP32 gap proportionally. This consistency suggests the shading unit and texture unit counts scale together, with AMD holding a 35.9% advantage in shading units and a 35.7% advantage in texture units.

The clock speed gap works in AMD's favor as well. AMD's boost clock of 2100 MHz is 35.5% higher than Intel's 1550 MHz boost clock. Base clocks differ even more dramatically, with AMD's 1000 MHz sitting 33.3% above Intel's 750 MHz.

The transistor and die size data tell a more nuanced story. AMD achieves higher performance with fewer transistors spread across a smaller die, thanks to its denser 5 nm process. Intel's larger die and higher transistor count per chip, but lower density, indicate a less efficient packing of resources. The 1280 mm² Intel die is 25.9% larger than AMD's 1017 mm² die, yet it holds 34.6% fewer transistors.

Power efficiency comparisons require care. AMD draws 66.7% more power than Intel (750 W versus 450 W), but delivers 83.9% more FP32 throughput. This means AMD's performance per watt is higher despite the greater absolute power draw. The data shows AMD delivers 0.109 TFLOPS per watt, while Intel delivers 0.099 TFLOPS per watt, a 10.1% advantage for AMD.

The absence of benchmark data limits any definitive statements about real-world workload performance. The database records no wins for either card in the head-to-head section. Both cards sit at the 50th percentile in the overall GPU ranking, a neutral position that reflects the lack of measured scores rather than any actual performance parity.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every specification category in the database.

Process and Foundry: AMD uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry.

Transistors: AMD contains 153,000 million transistors. Intel contains 100,000 million transistors.

Die Size: AMD measures 1017 mm². Intel measures 1280 mm².

Transistor Density: AMD achieves 150.4 million transistors per mm². Intel achieves 78.1 million transistors per mm².

Base Clock: AMD runs at 1000 MHz. Intel runs at 750 MHz.

Boost Clock: AMD runs at 2100 MHz. Intel runs at 1550 MHz.

Memory Clock: AMD runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. Intel runs at 1200 MHz with 2.4 Gbps effective.

Memory Size: AMD has 192 GB. Intel has 96 GB.

Memory Type: AMD uses HBM3. Intel uses HBM2e.

Memory Bandwidth: AMD delivers 5.32 TB/s. Intel delivers 2.46 TB/s.

Shading Units: AMD has 19,456. Intel has 14,336.

Texture Mapping Units: AMD has 1,216. Intel has 896.

Ray Tracing Cores: AMD has none listed. Intel has 112.

Texture Rate: AMD delivers 2,553.6 GTexel/s. Intel delivers 1,388.8 GTexel/s.

FP32 Performance: AMD delivers 81.72 TFLOPS. Intel delivers 44.44 TFLOPS.

FP16 Performance: AMD delivers 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1). Intel delivers 44.44 TFLOPS (1:1).

Thermal Design Power: AMD is rated at 750 W. Intel is rated at 450 W.

Suggested Power Supply: AMD suggests 1150 W. Intel suggests 850 W.

API Support: AMD lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Release Date: AMD released on 2023-12-05. Intel released on 2023-01-09.

Production Status: AMD has no recorded status. Intel is Active.

Predecessor: AMD lists Radeon Instinct. Intel lists none.

Successor: AMD lists none. Intel lists H3C Graphics.

Shared Specifications: Both use an 8192-bit memory bus, PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, OAM Module slot width, no display outputs, and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows the AMD Instinct MI308X holds a clear specification advantage over the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 in every compute-related metric. AMD delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 against Intel's 44.44 TFLOPS, a gap of 37.28 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth favors AMD by 2.86 TB/s. Memory capacity favors AMD by 96 GB. Texture rate favors AMD by 1,164.8 GTexel/s.

The Intel card counters with a lower 450 W thermal design power compared to AMD's 750 W, and it offers API support that AMD completely lacks. Intel also includes 112 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the AMD specifications. These differences suggest Intel's card retains some graphics-related functionality, while AMD's card is purely compute-focused.

The release date gap matters for platform planning. Intel shipped on 2023-01-09, nearly 11 months before AMD's 2023-12-05 release. Intel's production status is Active, while AMD has no recorded production status. Intel also lists a successor, H3C Graphics, indicating an ongoing product line evolution.

For organizations prioritizing raw FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity, the data points clearly to the AMD Instinct MI308X. Its 83.9% FP32 advantage and 116.3% bandwidth advantage represent substantial headroom for compute-heavy workloads. The 192 GB memory capacity doubles Intel's offering, potentially enabling larger in-memory datasets.

For organizations prioritizing lower power draw, graphics API compatibility, or existing Intel infrastructure, the Data Center GPU Max 1350 presents a more constrained option. Its 450 W power draw is 40% lower than AMD's 750 W, which could simplify cooling and power delivery. The DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support provides capabilities that the AMD card does not offer at all.

The lack of benchmark data prevents any conclusion about real-world application performance. Both cards sit at the 50th percentile in the overall GPU ranking, and neither has recorded benchmark scores in the database. The verdict must rest on specifications alone, where AMD holds the dominant position in raw compute resources.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Instinct MI308X wins on raw compute throughput. The 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 figure exceeds Intel's 44.44 TFLOPS by 83.9%. This advantage applies equally to FP16 workloads, since both cards deliver FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

AMD Instinct MI308X wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. The 192 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth provides more than double Intel's 96 GB HBM2e with 2.46 TB/s. The bandwidth advantage of 2.86 TB/s could benefit memory-bound workloads such as large language model inference or scientific simulations.

AMD Instinct MI308X wins on texture processing. The 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate exceeds Intel's 1,388.8 GTexel/s by 83.9%, consistent with its shading unit and TMU advantages.

AMD Instinct MI308X wins on architectural density. The 5 nm TSMC process delivers 150.4 million transistors per mm² versus Intel's 78.1 million per mm². This density advantage allows AMD to pack more compute resources into a smaller die.

Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins on power efficiency per card. The 450 W thermal design power is 300 W lower than AMD's 750 W. The suggested power supply of 850 W versus AMD's 1150 W further reduces system-level power infrastructure requirements.

Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins on graphics API support. DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support stand against AMD's N/A entries for all three APIs. The 112 ray tracing cores provide hardware functionality that AMD does not list.

Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins on availability timeline. The 2023-01-09 release date precedes AMD's 2023-12-05 release by nearly a year. Intel's Active production status and recorded successor indicate an established product lifecycle.

Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins on performance per watt. Despite lower absolute performance, Intel delivers 0.099 TFLOPS per watt against AMD's 0.109 TFLOPS per watt. This 10.1% efficiency advantage could reduce operating costs in large-scale deployments, though the absolute performance gap remains substantial.

Neither card wins on benchmark results. The database records zero benchmark scores for both cards, zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, and identical 50th percentile rankings. Any workload-specific performance claims would require additional recorded data that does not currently exist.