AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

The Verdict

The database records two accelerators with fundamentally different design goals. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a data-center compute accelerator with no display outputs, engineered for massive parallel throughput. The Intel Arc A310E is a compact, single-slot graphics card with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, built for embedded and edge visual workloads. The data shows no overlap in their intended deployment scenarios.

For workloads requiring large memory capacity and extreme FP32/FP16 compute, the MI325X is the only choice. It delivers 256 GB of HBM3e memory with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP16. The Arc A310E offers 4 GB GDDR6 with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, and 6.144 TFLOPS FP16. The MI325X provides roughly 26.6 times the FP32 throughput and approximately 13.3 times the FP16 throughput, with 49.5 times the memory bandwidth and 64 times the memory capacity.

For embedded systems needing graphics output, the Arc A310E is the only viable option. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI325X reports N/A for all graphics APIs. The Arc also includes 6 ray tracing cores, which the MI325X does not list. The Arc A310E draws 75 W with a 250 W suggested PSU, while the MI325X draws 1000 W with a 1400 W suggested PSU. The MI325X uses an OAM module form factor with no power connectors, while the Arc uses a single-slot PCIe card.

The MI325X has no benchmark scores recorded, and the Arc A310E likewise has no benchmark scores. Both occupy the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero for each. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and neither product has nearest rivals listed.

Architecture Differences

The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip on CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. It integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a density of 45.9 million per mm². The MI325X packs roughly 21.3 times more transistors into 6.5 times the die area.

The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, and its texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s. The MI325X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the Arc A310E includes 6 RT cores.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The MI325X runs at a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz. The Arc A310E runs at a constant 2000 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks also differ: the MI325X uses 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Arc uses 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective.

Memory architecture is completely different. The MI325X uses 256 GB HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s. The Arc A310E uses 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s. The MI325X has no display outputs; the Arc A310E has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.

The MI325X supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI325X is an OAM module with no power connectors, requiring a 1400 W PSU. The Arc A310E is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, requiring a 250 W PSU.

The MI325X was released on 2024-10-09, with no production status specified. The Arc A310E was released on 2024-03-31 and is marked end-of-life. The MI325X lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct, while the Arc A310E lists Xe Graphics as predecessor and Battlemage as successor.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, which is approximately 26.6 times the 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 of the Intel Arc A310E.

Q: Do both cards support graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI325X reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and has no display outputs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory, which is 64 times the 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on the Arc A310E.

Q: Which card has ray tracing capability?

A: The Intel Arc A310E includes 6 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI325X does not list ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP with a 1400 W suggested PSU. The Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: What are the form factor differences?

A: The MI325X is an OAM module with no power connectors and no dimensions listed. The Arc A310E is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI325X | Intel Arc A310E |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 256 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 6.14 TB/s | 124.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19,456 | 768 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 32 |

| ROPs | 0 | 16 |

| RT Cores | Not listed | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 32.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 64.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 168 mm, 69 mm, 20 mm |

| Production Status | Not listed | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2024-03-31 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | Not listed | Battlemage |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products. The winsA and winsB counters are both zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. No recorded measurements place one product ahead of the other in any direct comparison.

The lack of benchmark data aligns with the products' distinct roles. The MI325X targets server compute with no graphics pipeline, making it unsuitable for rendering tests. The Arc A310E targets embedded graphics with 4 GB memory, making it unsuitable for large-scale compute workloads.

The largest measurable advantages come from raw specifications. In FP32 throughput, the MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS for the Arc A310E, a 26.6-fold difference. In FP16, the MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the Arc, a 13.3-fold difference. Memory bandwidth shows a 49.5-fold advantage for the MI325X at 6.14 TB/s versus 124.0 GB/s. Texture rate favors the MI325X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, a 39.9-fold difference.

The Arc A310E holds advantages in pixel rate, delivering 32.00 GPixel/s compared to the MI325X's 0 MPixel/s. The Arc also supports graphics APIs and includes 6 RT cores, while the MI325X has none. The Arc's constant 2000 MHz clock across base and boost contrasts with the MI325X's 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, but clock speed does not compensate for the massive difference in shading units.

Transistor counts reinforce the performance gap. The MI325X integrates 153,000 million transistors versus 7,200 million for the Arc A310E, representing a 21.25-fold difference. The MI325X's 1017 mm² die dwarfs the Arc's 157 mm². The MI325X uses a 5 nm process with 150.4M transistors per mm², while the Arc uses 6 nm with 45.9M per mm², indicating a 3.3-fold density advantage for the MI325X.

Power consumption scales with capability. The MI325X draws 1000 W with a 1400 W suggested PSU, while the Arc A310E draws 75 W with a 250 W suggested PSU. The MI325X requires a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and OAM module slot, while the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and fits a single-slot form factor.

Release timing places the MI325X later, with a 2024-10-09 date versus 2024-03-31 for the Arc A310E. The Arc is marked end-of-life, while the MI325X has no production status recorded. The Arc lists Battlemage as its successor, while the MI325X has no successor listed.

The data confirms these are not competing products. The MI325X exists for compute density with no graphics path, and the Arc A310E exists for graphics output with limited compute. Their 50th percentile rankings among all GPUs reflect the database's treatment of unbenchmarked entries, not comparative performance. Without recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals, the specification sheet serves as the only quantitative basis for differentiation.