AMD Instinct MI308X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the respective process nodes and foundries for the AMD Instinct MI308X and Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The AMD chip integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, whereas the Intel chip contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die.

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

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X ships with 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has 128 GB of HBM2e memory on the same 8192-bit bus width, but bandwidth drops to 3.21 TB/s.

Q: What are the peak FP32 and FP16 throughput figures for each part?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X reaches 81.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (at a 1:1 ratio). The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem delivers 52.43 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (also at 1:1).

Q: How do the thermal design power and power supply requirements compare?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X is rated at 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is rated at 2400 W TDP and requires a suggested PSU of 2800 W, a substantially higher power envelope.

Q: What form factors and power connectors do the two cards use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X is an OAM module with no power connectors listed. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, using a single 16-pin power connector.

Q: Which API support does each accelerator expose?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan (all N/A). The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan entry listed.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators diverge sharply at the silicon level. The AMD Instinct MI308X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses the Ponte Vecchio chip built on Generation 12.5 architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The AMD part integrates 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel part packs 100,000 million transistors into a larger 1280 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 78.1M per mm².

Clock behavior also separates the two. The AMD chip runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Intel chip has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost of 1600 MHz, with memory at 1565 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). These clock differences are significant because the AMD part sustains a higher boost ceiling while also carrying more memory bandwidth.

Compute resources differ as well. The AMD Instinct MI308X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs. The Intel part does list 128 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part does not list ray tracing cores in the database. Both parts report 0 pixel rate (0 MPixel/s), reflecting their compute-only design without traditional raster output stages. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, and neither has display outputs.

The power architecture is a major differentiator. The AMD Instinct MI308X is rated at 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, and it is packaged as an OAM module with no power connectors listed. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is rated at 2400 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 2800 W, packaged as a dual-slot card with a single 16-pin power connector. The Intel card's physical length is 267 mm (10.5 inches). Production status for the Intel part is marked Active, while the AMD part has no production status recorded in the database. Release dates place the Intel part at January 2023 and the AMD part at December 2023. The AMD part lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct; the Intel part lists its successor as H3C Graphics.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear division of roles. The AMD Instinct MI308X leads in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. Its FP32 and FP16 figures of 81.72 TFLOPS exceed the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem's 52.43 TFLOPS by a substantial margin in both precision formats. Its 192 GB HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth more than doubles the Intel part's memory bandwidth of 3.21 TB/s and provides 64 GB more capacity. For workloads that saturate FP32 or FP16 arithmetic, or that require very large memory footprints and fast data movement, the AMD part is the stronger choice based on the recorded numbers.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem does not win on compute or memory throughput. Its advantages are limited to architectural details that are not directly comparable in the headline benchmarks: it lists 128 ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, and is marked as Active in production status. It also has a lower TDP per unit of silicon area, but the absolute TDP of 2400 W is far above the AMD part's 750 W. The suggested PSU of 2800 W versus 1150 W reinforces that the Intel subsystem demands much more system-level power delivery.

Neither part has recorded benchmark scores in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 0. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and the win counts are 0 for both sides. Therefore, the verdict must rest on specification data alone. The AMD Instinct MI308X is the higher-performance accelerator for compute-heavy and memory-heavy workloads. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is the only one of the two that exposes a conventional graphics API stack and includes ray tracing cores, but its lower FP32, FP16, and memory bandwidth numbers place it behind in every measured throughput category.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Ponte Vecchio |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Generation 12.5 |

| 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 | 1565 MHz, 3.1 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | HBM2e |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 3.21 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 16384 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 1024 |

| RT Cores | Not listed | 128 |

| 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 | 2400 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 2800 W |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | Not listed |

| Length | Not listed | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

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

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Not listed |

| Successor | Not listed | H3C Graphics |

Both parts share the same 8192-bit memory bus width, 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, and no display outputs. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for these two accelerators, and neither part has individual benchmark scores. The average benchmark score for both is 0, and both are placed at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs. The wins counters for each side in head-to-head comparisons are both 0. Without measured workload performance, the analysis must rely on the specification deltas that are recorded.

The largest recorded advantage for the AMD Instinct MI308X appears in memory bandwidth. The AMD part delivers 5.32 TB/s versus 3.21 TB/s for the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem, a lead of roughly 66% in raw memory throughput. This is paired with a larger memory pool of 192 GB versus 128 GB, a 64 GB difference. For workloads that are memory-capacity bound or bandwidth bound, the AMD part holds a decisive edge in the recorded data.

In compute throughput, the AMD part again leads. Its FP32 figure of 81.72 TFLOPS is about 56% higher than the Intel part's 52.43 TFLOPS, and its FP16 figure of 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) is likewise about 56% higher. Texture rate follows the same pattern: the AMD part records 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 1,638.4 GTexel/s for the Intel part. The AMD part also has more shading units (19,456 versus 16,384) and more TMUs (1,216 versus 1,024).

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem, however, does carry some specification advantages. It lists 128 ray tracing cores, which the AMD part does not list at all. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the AMD part lists N/A for both. The Intel part has a higher memory clock of 1565 MHz versus 1300 MHz, although its effective data rate of 3.1 Gbps is lower than the AMD part's 5.2 Gbps effective rate. The Intel part is also marked Active in production status, while the AMD part has no production status recorded.

The power envelope favors the AMD part in absolute terms. The AMD Instinct MI308X is rated at 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is rated at 2400 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 2800 W. The Intel part requires more than three times the suggested PSU capacity of the AMD part. The physical packaging also differs: the AMD part is an OAM module with no power connectors, while the Intel part is a dual-slot card with a single 16-pin connector and a length of 267 mm.

Release timing shows the Intel part announced earlier, in January 2023, with the AMD part following in December 2023. The Intel part lists a successor in H3C Graphics, while the AMD part lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database, so no price comparison is possible from the recorded data.