AMD Instinct MI308X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identifiers for the AMD Instinct MI308X and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip built on Generation 12.5 architecture, manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ between the two accelerators?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X features 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192 bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 offers 128 GB of HBM2e memory with the same 8192 bit bus width but a lower 3.28 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each chip?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M / mm². The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, giving a density of 78.1M / mm².

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 operates at a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz.

Q: What are the floating-point performance figures for each accelerator?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 provides 52.43 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio).

Q: What is the power consumption rating for each device?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has a TDP of 600 W with a suggested PSU of 1000 W.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI308X and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 represent two distinct approaches to data center acceleration. The AMD part uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0, an architecture dedicated to compute workloads. The Intel part uses the Ponte Vecchio chip built on Generation 12.5, which is Intel's data center GPU architecture.

The manufacturing process differs substantially. The AMD Instinct MI308X is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses a 10 nm process at Intel. This process difference contributes directly to the transistor density gap: the AMD chip packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, achieving 150.4M / mm². The Intel chip contains 100,000 million transistors on a larger 1280 mm² die, resulting in just 78.1M / mm². The AMD die is more compact yet carries more transistors, indicating a denser layout.

Memory architecture also diverges. The AMD Instinct MI308X uses HBM3 memory totaling 192 GB, with an 8192 bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses HBM2e memory totaling 128 GB, with the same 8192 bit bus but only 3.28 TB/s bandwidth. Both devices use the same bus width, but the newer HBM3 standard gives AMD a significant bandwidth advantage.

Shader resources differ as well. The AMD Instinct MI308X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and no ROPs. Notably, the Intel part includes 128 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part has none listed. The AMD part has no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan not specified.

Both devices are OAM modules with PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces and no display outputs. The AMD Instinct MI308X has no power connectors listed, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 does not specify power connectors either. The AMD part's suggested PSU is 1150 W, while Intel's is 1000 W.

The release timeline shows the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 launched on 2023-01-09, while the AMD Instinct MI308X followed on 2023-12-05. The Intel part is marked as Active in production status, while the AMD part has no production status listed. The AMD Instinct MI308X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, while the Intel part lists H3C Graphics as its successor.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two accelerators with different strengths. The AMD Instinct MI308X leads in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. It delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in FP32 and FP16, compared to 52.43 TFLOPS for the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550. The AMD part also offers 192 GB of HBM3 memory versus 128 GB of HBM2e, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth versus 3.28 TB/s.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 counters with a lower TDP of 600 W versus 750 W, and it includes ray tracing cores that the AMD part lacks. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 APIs, whereas the AMD part has no API support listed. For workloads that require graphics API compatibility or ray tracing, the Intel part has the only available features.

For pure compute density, the AMD Instinct MI308X uses a smaller die (1017 mm²) with more transistors (153,000 million) and a denser layout (150.4M / mm²). The Intel part uses a larger die (1280 mm²) with fewer transistors (100,000 million) and lower density (78.1M / mm²). The AMD chip's 5 nm process gives it a structural advantage.

The power envelope differs, with the AMD part rated at 750 W and the Intel part at 600 W. The suggested PSU follows the same pattern: 1150 W for AMD, 1000 W for Intel. Systems with tighter power budgets would favor the Intel part, while those prioritizing maximum memory and throughput would select the AMD part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI308X | Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 |

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

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Ponte Vecchio |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Generation 12.5 |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 100,000 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 1280 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 78.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 1600 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective | 1600 MHz, 3.2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | HBM2e |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 8192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 3.28 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 19,456 | 16,384 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 1,024 |

| RT Cores | None listed | 128 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 0 MPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 1,638.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 52.43 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 600 W |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 1000 W |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-01-09 |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either accelerator, so the analysis relies on the specification-level data provided. The FP32 and FP16 performance figures show a clear gap: the AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, which is 29.29 TFLOPS higher than the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550's 52.43 TFLOPS. This represents a 55.9% advantage for AMD in raw floating-point throughput.

Memory bandwidth follows the same pattern. The AMD part provides 5.32 TB/s, which is 2.04 TB/s higher than the Intel part's 3.28 TB/s. That is a 62.2% advantage for AMD. Memory capacity also favors AMD: 192 GB versus 128 GB, a 64 GB difference.

Texture rate tells a similar story. The AMD Instinct MI308X achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 reaches 1,638.4 GTexel/s. The AMD part is ahead by 915.2 GTexel/s, a 55.9% margin, which mirrors the FP32 ratio because texture rate scales with shading resources and clock speed.

Clock speeds favor AMD as well. The base clock is 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz, a 100 MHz gap. The boost clock is 2100 MHz versus 1600 MHz, a 500 MHz gap. Higher clocks contribute directly to the throughput differences.

The Intel part holds advantages in specific areas. Its TDP is 600 W versus 750 W, a 150 W lower power draw. The Intel part also includes 128 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part lists none. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the AMD part has no API support listed.

Transistor density data shows the AMD chip is more efficient in layout: 150.4M / mm² versus 78.1M / mm². The AMD die is also smaller at 1017 mm² versus 1280 mm², despite carrying more transistors.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI308X wins in every compute and memory metric recorded. It delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, compared to 52.43 TFLOPS for the Intel part. It provides 192 GB of memory versus 128 GB, with HBM3 instead of HBM2e. Its bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s exceeds the Intel part's 3.28 TB/s. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s outpaces the Intel part's 1,638.4 GTexel/s. Its higher base and boost clocks, 1000 MHz and 2100 MHz versus 900 MHz and 1600 MHz, support these advantages.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 wins in power efficiency as measured by TDP. Its 600 W rating is 150 W lower than the AMD part's 750 W. The Intel part also includes 128 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the AMD part. For workloads requiring DirectX 12 or OpenGL support, the Intel part is the only option, as the AMD part lists N/A for all APIs.

The Intel part also holds a production status of Active, while the AMD part has no production status recorded. The Intel part has a listed successor, H3C Graphics, while the AMD part lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. These lifecycle details may influence procurement decisions.

For memory-intensive workloads such as large model inference or high-bandwidth data processing, the AMD Instinct MI308X's 192 GB capacity and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth provide clear advantages. For compute workloads requiring maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, the AMD part's 81.72 TFLOPS is the stronger figure. For power-constrained deployments, the Intel part's 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested PSU offer a lighter system footprint. For graphics API compatibility, the Intel part's DirectX 12 and OpenGL support are the only recorded options.