AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc A380E x2 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows two accelerators built for entirely different purposes, and the benchmark wins reflect that split. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 is a data center compute accelerator with no display outputs, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 is an embedded graphics solution with 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. In raw compute terms, the MI300 dominates every metric where they can be compared. The FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS gives AMD a 11.7x advantage in single-precision work. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided: 383.0 TFLOPS (8:1) against 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1), a 46.7x gap. Texture rate also favors AMD heavily at 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, an 11.7x margin.

The Intel part wins where the AMD part cannot compete at all. The Arc A380E x2 delivers 64.00 GPixel/s pixel throughput, while the MI300 records 0 MPixel/s. The Intel card has 32 ROPs and 8 ray tracing cores, whereas the AMD accelerator lists zero ROPs and no RT core count. For any workload requiring rasterization, ray tracing, or display output, the Intel product is the only functional choice. The MI300 is a pure compute device, and its design reflects that specialization.

The power envelope also tells a story. The MI300 draws a 600 W TDP with a suggested 1000 W PSU, while the Arc A380E x2 runs at 130 W with a 300 W suggested PSU. For deployment scenarios where power density matters, the Intel part offers a 4.6x lower TDP. The MI300's 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die versus 7,200 million on 157 mm² shows the scale difference: AMD uses 21.3x more transistors across a 6.5x larger die. The memory subsystem follows the same pattern, with 128 GB of HBM3 at 6.55 TB/s bandwidth against 6 GB of GDDR6 at 186.0 GB/s, a 35.2x bandwidth advantage for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. AMD uses CDNA 3.0 with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm TSMC process. Intel uses Xe-HPG with the DG2-128 chip, built on a 6 nm TSMC process. The process node difference gives AMD a transistor density of 150.4M per mm² versus Intel's 45.9M per mm², a 3.3x density advantage. That density translates directly into the massive compute difference.

The MI300 packs 14080 shading units and 880 TMUs, while the Arc A380E x2 has 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs. AMD's 13.75x shading unit advantage and 13.75x TMU advantage align with the FP32 and texture rate deltas. The Intel part includes 32 ROPs and 8 RT cores, features entirely absent from the AMD specification, which lists zero ROPs and no RT core data. Memory architecture differs completely: AMD uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 1600 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective) signaling, while Intel uses GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The MI300's memory clock is lower, but the 85.3x wider bus delivers the enormous bandwidth advantage.

The interface and output sections show the intended use cases. AMD connects via PCIe 5.0 x16 with no display outputs. Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x8 with 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0. The MI300 requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the Arc A380E x2 uses 1x 6-pin. The Intel card is single-slot and measures 265 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm. The AMD card is 267 mm by 111 mm with no listed width. Both are physically similar in length, but the power and cooling demands diverge sharply.

The API support also differs. Intel lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card lists no API support at all, consistent with its lack of display outputs and graphics pipeline. Release timing shows the MI300 launched on 2023-01-03, while the Arc A380E x2 arrived on 2024-03-31. The Intel part is marked as end-of-life with a Battlemage successor, while the AMD part has no production status or successor listed.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products with no meaningful overlap. For compute-intensive workloads such as large model training or inference, the MI300 is the clear choice. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and 383.0 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with 128 GB of HBM3 memory at 6.55 TB/s, places it in a different performance class entirely. The 600 W TDP and 1000 W PSU requirement are the costs of that capability.

For display-driven or graphics-heavy applications, the Arc A380E x2 is the only option between the two. Its 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, 32 ROPs, 8 RT cores, and 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs make it functional for rendering and output tasks. The 130 W TDP and 300 W PSU requirement make it far easier to deploy in embedded or compact systems. The 6 GB GDDR6 memory is modest but appropriate for its intended role.

The MI300's lack of any display output and zero pixel rate means it cannot produce a video signal. The Arc A380E x2's 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 is less than one tenth of the AMD part's throughput, so it cannot match compute density. Users choosing between these two are not comparing similar products; they are selecting between a server accelerator and an embedded graphics card. The benchmark data offers no ambiguity: pick the MI300 for compute, pick the Arc A380E x2 for graphics output. The 46.7x FP16 gap and the 0 MPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate gap define the boundary.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300, with 47.87 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc A380E x2, an 11.7x advantage.

Q: Does the AMD MI300 support display output?

A: No. The MI300 lists "No outputs" in its display outputs field and records 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, making it unsuitable for any video output task.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 6.55 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A380E x2 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has ray tracing support?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2, which lists 8 RT cores. The AMD MI300 has no RT core count listed.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP and suggests a 1000 W PSU with 2x 8-pin connectors. The Arc A380E x2 has a 130 W TDP and suggests a 300 W PSU with 1x 6-pin connector.

Q: When did each product launch?

A: The AMD MI300 launched on 2023-01-03, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 launched on 2024-03-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data contains no entries, but the specification comparisons provide the measurable deltas. The largest win for the MI300 comes in FP16 throughput: 383.0 TFLOPS (8:1) versus 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1), a 46.7x difference. This metric matters for AI and machine learning workloads that rely on reduced precision. The FP32 comparison shows 47.87 TFLOPS against 4.096 TFLOPS, an 11.7x margin. Texture rate follows at 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, also an 11.7x difference. Memory bandwidth gives the MI300 a 35.2x advantage: 6.55 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s. The 128 GB capacity versus 6 GB is a 21.3x difference in memory size.

The Arc A380E x2 wins the pixel rate comparison outright: 64.00 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. The Intel card also has 32 ROPs to AMD's zero, and 8 RT cores to AMD's none. The base clock favors Intel at 2000 MHz versus 1000 MHz, and the memory clock also favors Intel at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 1600 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). However, these clock advantages do not translate into throughput wins because the architectural scale differences are overwhelming.

The power efficiency comparison is notable. The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS at 600 W, which is 0.0798 TFLOPS per watt. The Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS at 130 W, which is 0.0315 TFLOPS per watt. The AMD part is 2.5x more efficient in FP32 per watt despite its much higher absolute power draw. In FP16, the MI300's 383.0 TFLOPS at 600 W gives 0.638 TFLOPS per watt, while the Arc A380E x2's 8.192 TFLOPS at 130 W gives 0.063 TFLOPS per watt, a 10.1x efficiency advantage for AMD.

The transistor counts reinforce the performance gap. The MI300 uses 153,000 million transistors, which is 21.3x the 7,200 million in the Arc A380E x2. The die size difference is 1017 mm² versus 157 mm², a 6.5x area difference. The transistor density of 150.4M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm² shows the 5 nm process advantage over 6 nm.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 | Intel Arc A380E x2 |

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

| 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 | 1700 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1600 MHz, 6.4 Gbps effective | 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 96 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 6.55 TB/s | 186.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 14080 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 880 | 64 |

| ROPs | 0 | 32 |

| RT Cores | None listed | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 128.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.87 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 383.0 TFLOPS (8:1) | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 130 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| DirectX | None listed | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | None listed | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | None listed | 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm | 265 mm |

| Height | 111 mm | 127 mm |

| Width | None listed | 20 mm |

| Slot Width | None listed | Single-slot |

| Production Status | None listed | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2024-03-31 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Data Center | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | None listed | Battlemage |

The specification table shows the two products share almost nothing beyond the manufacturer process relationship. Both use TSMC as the foundry, but at different nodes. The MI300 is a first-generation Radeon Instinct part in the MIx generation, while the Arc A380E x2 is part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The Intel card has a successor in Battlemage, while the AMD card has no successor listed. The launch MSRP fields are empty for both, so no pricing data is available in the database.