AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the Intel Arc A380M. Neither device has an average benchmark score, a percentile rank that distinguishes it from the other (both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs), nor any nearest rival entries. The wins count for each is zero, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty.

This absence of measured performance data is itself informative. The two products occupy entirely different segments of the hardware spectrum. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a data center accelerator with an FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc A380M is a mobile graphics processor with 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The raw compute ratio is roughly 20 to 1 in favor of the AMD part, a figure derived directly from the stated specifications, not from any benchmark run.

Texture and pixel throughput tell a similar story. The MI325X delivers a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, against the A380M's 128.0 GTexel/s. The Intel part does have a defined pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, while the AMD accelerator reports 0 MPixel/s, reflecting its lack of any display output or rasterization pipeline. Memory bandwidth differs by an order of magnitude: 6.14 TB/s for the AMD HBM3e stack versus 186.0 GB/s for the Intel GDDR6 configuration.

Without benchmark data, the only quantitative comparisons available come from the specification table. Those numbers show a clear stratification: the MI325X is built for massive parallel compute, and the A380M is built for constrained mobile rendering.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins on every metric where both parts have defined values, except for pixel rate and API support, where the AMD part has no applicable entries. The MI325X uses 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs. The A380M uses 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD part has 8,192-bit memory bus width, the Intel part has 96-bit. The AMD part carries 256 GB of HBM3e memory, the Intel part carries 6 GB of GDDR6.

Clock speeds show a different tradeoff. The Intel Arc A380M has a higher base clock at 1,550 MHz versus 1,000 MHz for the AMD part. Boost clocks are close: 2,100 MHz for AMD, 2,000 MHz for Intel. The Intel part also draws far less power, with a 35 W TDP against the AMD card's 1,000 W TDP. The A380M is an MXM module, while the MI325X is an OAM module, indicating different physical integration targets.

The MI325X has no display outputs. The A380M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it sends video through the host system rather than direct connectors. The AMD part has no API support entries for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Intel part wins in portability and power efficiency, based strictly on the recorded numbers. The AMD part wins in raw compute, memory capacity, and bandwidth. These are different products for different jobs.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these two GPUs should not be cross-shopped. The AMD Instinct MI325X is an accelerator with no display output, no graphics API support, and a 1,000 W power draw. It is designed for server racks with 1,400 W suggested power supplies. The Intel Arc A380M is a 35 W mobile module with full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, 32 ROPs, and a 6 GB framebuffer, intended for portable devices.

A builder selecting a GPU for a laptop or small-form-factor mobile system has only one viable choice from this pair: the Intel Arc A380M. It is the only one with rasterization hardware, display routing, and graphics API compatibility. A data center operator provisioning a compute node for FP32 or FP16 workloads has only one viable choice: the AMD Instinct MI325X, which offers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 throughput at a 1:1 ratio, versus the Intel part's 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio.

The transistor counts reflect the design gulf. The MI325X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die using a 5 nm process. The A380M uses 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die using a 6 nm process. The AMD chip has a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter; the Intel chip has 45.9 million per square millimeter. These are not competing generations of the same product line. They are separate architectures, CDNA 3.0 versus Xe-HPG, aimed at separate markets.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc A380M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI325X support DirectX?

A: No. The recorded data lists the MI325X's DirectX support as N/A, along with OpenGL and Vulkan. The Intel Arc A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory. The Intel Arc A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power requirement?

A: The Intel Arc A380M has a TDP of 35 W. The AMD Instinct MI325X has a TDP of 1,000 W and a suggested power supply of 1,400 W.

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

A: No. The MI325X has no display outputs. The Intel Arc A380M's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on the host device.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has a boost clock of 2,100 MHz. The Intel Arc A380M has a boost clock of 2,000 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI325X is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, using a chip designated Aqua Vanjaram. It belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation and is manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The Intel Arc A380M uses the Xe-HPG architecture with a DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 6 nm process.

The AMD part has no RT cores listed, no tensor cores listed, and no ROPs. It is purely a compute-oriented design with 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs. The Intel part includes 8 RT cores and 32 ROPs, marking it as a graphics-oriented design with hardware ray tracing support. The AMD part's FP16 performance equals its FP32 performance at a 1:1 ratio, suggesting a design optimized for mixed-precision workloads without dedicated tensor hardware. The Intel part's FP16 performance is double its FP32 performance at a 2:1 ratio, which is a common pattern for consumer graphics architectures.

The AMD accelerator has no display outputs, reflecting its role as a compute accelerator rather than a rendering device. The Intel part routes display through the host system. The AMD part has no API entries for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the Intel part has full entries for all three, including DirectX 12 Ultimate.

The transistor density differs substantially. The AMD chip achieves 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter on a 1017 mm² die. The Intel chip achieves 45.9 million per square millimeter on a 157 mm² die. Both are TSMC products, but the different process nodes and design goals produce very different physical characteristics.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable field. Process node: 5 nm for AMD, 6 nm for Intel. Transistor count: 153,000 million for AMD, 7,200 million for Intel. Die size: 1017 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density: 150.4 million per mm² versus 45.9 million per mm².

Base clocks: 1,000 MHz for AMD, 1,550 MHz for Intel. Boost clocks: 2,100 MHz for AMD, 2,000 MHz for Intel. Memory clocks: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for AMD, 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for Intel.

Memory configuration: 256 GB HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth for AMD. 6 GB GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth for Intel.

Compute units: 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, 0 ROPs for AMD. 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs for Intel. AMD has no RT cores; Intel has 8. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s for AMD, 64.00 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s for AMD, 128.0 GTexel/s for Intel.

FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS for AMD, 4.096 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) for AMD, 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel.

TDP: 1000 W for AMD, 35 W for Intel. Slot width: OAM Module for AMD, MXM Module for Intel. Power connectors: None for AMD, no data for Intel. Suggested PSU: 1400 W for AMD, no data for Intel. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for AMD, MXM-A (3.1) for Intel. Display outputs: No outputs for AMD, Portable Device Dependent for Intel.

APIs: DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A for AMD. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 for Intel.

Release dates: 2024-10-09 for AMD, 2023-01-23 for Intel. Production status: no data for AMD, Active for Intel. Predecessor: Radeon Instinct for AMD, none for Intel. Launch MSRP: not available for either.