AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI325X and Intel Arc A380E occupy entirely separate corners of the hardware landscape. The MI325X is a 1000 W OAM module built for server-scale acceleration, while the A380E is a 75 W single-slot graphics card with four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The data shows no benchmark overlaps, no shared use cases, and no meaningful competition between the two.

The MI325X is the choice for anyone operating in high-performance compute environments where massive memory capacity and raw throughput are the primary requirements. Its 256 GB HBM3e memory, 8192-bit bus, and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth place it in a category that targets large-scale AI training and inference workloads. The A380E, by contrast, is a low-power embedded or entry-level graphics solution, with 6 GB GDDR6 memory, a 96-bit bus, and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth, aimed at display output and light rendering tasks.

Neither product should be selected over the other based on direct comparison. The MI325X has no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The A380E delivers 64.00 GPixel/s, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and is rated at just 75 W. The verdict is straightforward: the MI325X is a compute accelerator with no graphics functionality, and the A380E is a graphics card with no compute-accelerator pretensions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X offers 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel Arc A380E provides 186.0 GB/s. The MI325X leads by a factor of more than 30.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI325X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI325X has no display outputs and reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Arc A380E, in contrast, has four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The A380E has a TDP of 75 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which architecture does each use?

A: The MI325X uses CDNA 3.0, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The A380E uses Xe-HPG, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, while the A380E has 1,024. The MI325X also has 1,216 texture mapping units versus 64 on the A380E.

Q: What is the production status of each?

A: The A380E is marked as end-of-life, with a successor listed as Battlemage. The MI325X has no production status listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses CDNA 3.0, a compute-focused architecture designed for data center acceleration. Its chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC and packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 150.4M per mm².

The Intel Arc A380E uses Xe-HPG, the architecture behind Intel's Arc 3 generation (Alchemist). Its chip, DG2-128, is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC and contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The Xe-HPG architecture includes dedicated ray tracing cores, with 8 present on the A380E, while the MI325X lists no ray tracing cores at all.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI325X uses HBM3e with a 8192-bit bus, while the A380E uses GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus. The MI325X has no ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming its lack of rasterization hardware. The A380E has 32 ROPs and a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s. The MI325X also has no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan; the A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows differences in nearly every measured field.

• Process node: 5 nm (MI325X) versus 6 nm (A380E), both at TSMC.
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus 7,200 million.
• Die size: 1017 mm² versus 157 mm².
• Transistor density: 150.4M / mm² versus 45.9M / mm².
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 2000 MHz.
• Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 2000 MHz.
• Memory clock: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: 256 GB versus 6 GB.
• Memory type: HBM3e versus GDDR6.
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit versus 96 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s.
• Shading units: 19,456 versus 1,024.
• Texture mapping units: 1,216 versus 64.
• ROPs: 0 versus 32.
• Ray tracing cores: None listed versus 8.
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: 1000 W versus 75 W.
• Slot width: OAM Module versus Single-slot.
• Power connectors: None for both.
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus 250 W.
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.
• Display outputs: No outputs versus 4x DisplayPort 2.0.
• APIs: N/A versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4.
• Dimensions: No listed dimensions for the MI325X; A380E is 254 mm long, 127 mm high, 20 mm wide.
• Release date: 2024-10-09 versus 2024-03-31.
• Production status: Not listed versus end-of-life.
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus Xe Graphics.
• Successor: None listed versus Battlemage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark results exist in the database for these two products. The winsA and winsB fields both record zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. This absence is itself informative: the MI325X and A380E never appear in the same test suite, because they are not designed to run the same workloads.

The raw specification data provides the closest analog to a comparison. In FP32 compute, the MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, which is 20 times the A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS. In FP16, the MI325X again delivers 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the A380E delivers 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The texture rate tells a similar story: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, a 20-fold gap.

Memory bandwidth is the most dramatic differentiator. The MI325X's 6.14 TB/s is more than 33 times the A380E's 186.0 GB/s. The 256 GB capacity versus 6 GB is a 42-fold difference. The bus width gap, 8192 bit versus 96 bit, is even wider in relative terms.

The A380E wins in every graphics-oriented metric. Its pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s compares to 0 MPixel/s on the MI325X. It has 32 ROPs where the MI325X has none. It supports four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the MI325X has no outputs. Its base clock of 2000 MHz is double the MI325X's 1000 MHz, and its memory clock of 1937 MHz exceeds the MI325X's 1500 MHz, though the effective bandwidth remains far lower due to the narrow bus.

Power efficiency also favors the A380E. At 75 W, it delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32, which is roughly 54.6 GFLOPS per watt. The MI325X at 1000 W delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, or roughly 81.7 GFLOPS per watt. The MI325X is actually more efficient in raw compute per watt, but the A380E's absolute power draw is 925 W lower, making it suitable for systems with a 250 W suggested PSU rather than a 1400 W unit.

Both products share a 50th percentile score versus all GPUs in the database, and both have an average benchmark score of zero, reflecting the lack of standardized benchmark entries. The release dates differ by roughly six months, with the A380E appearing on 2024-03-31 and the MI325X on 2024-10-09.

In summary, the recorded data shows two products that never intersect. The MI325X wins on compute throughput, memory capacity, bandwidth, and transistor scale. The A380E wins on display support, API compatibility, physical size, and power draw. Any comparison between them is a comparison of categories, not competitors.