AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc Pro B65 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 or the Intel Arc Pro B65. Both cards hold a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of zero, indicating that no performance measurements have been populated. Consequently, there are no head-to-head wins for either product in the recorded data. The absence of scores means direct performance comparisons cannot be made numerically.

What can be compared is the theoretical compute capacity derived from the specification sheets. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS. This places the AMD part at roughly 3.9 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part on paper. In FP16, the MI300 reaches 383.0 TFLOPS using an 8:1 ratio, whereas the B65 reaches 24.58 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio. The MI300's FP16 figure is approximately 15.6 times higher, though the differing ratios mean the comparison is not apples-to-apples for compute workloads that rely on FP16 accumulation rates.

Texture processing shows a similar gap. The MI300 records a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s, while the B65 records 384.0 GTexel/s. That is a 3.9 times advantage for the AMD accelerator. Pixel rate, however, tells a different story: the MI300 lists 0 MPixel/s, while the B65 lists 192.0 GPixel/s. The AMD part has no ROPs (0), meaning it is not designed for rasterization output, whereas the Intel part has 80 ROPs and produces a standard pixel rate. This is a fundamental architectural difference rather than a performance win in the conventional sense.

Memory bandwidth favors the MI300 heavily. The AMD card uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 6.55 TB/s. The Intel card uses 32 GB of GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus, yielding 608.0 GB/s. The bandwidth ratio is approximately 10.8:1 in favor of AMD. Capacity is four times larger on the MI300. Clock speeds, conversely, favor Intel: the B65 runs at a flat 2400 MHz base and boost, while the MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The Intel card's memory also runs at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) versus 1600 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective) on the AMD card, though the vastly wider AMD bus compensates.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ substantially. The MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The B65 packs 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, with a density of 72.1M per mm². Both use a 5 nm process from TSMC. The MI300's die is 3.7 times larger and carries 7.8 times more transistors. Power draw also diverges: the MI300 is rated at 600 W TDP with two 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 1000 W PSU, while the B65 is rated at 200 W TDP with one 8-pin connector and a suggested 550 W PSU.

Where Each One Wins

Given the lack of recorded benchmark data, wins must be inferred from architectural specifications. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 wins decisively in compute throughput, memory bandwidth, memory capacity, and texture throughput. Its 128 GB HBM3 pool and 6.55 TB/s bandwidth position it for large data residency and high-bandwidth workloads. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and 383.0 TFLOPS FP16 figures indicate a design aimed at dense numerical processing. The 1,496.0 GTexel/s texture rate supports heavy shader work. The MI300 also has no display outputs, which confirms a server-oriented role where rendering to a screen is irrelevant.

The Intel Arc Pro B65 wins in areas tied to graphics output and rasterization. It has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it usable for display-driven professional workloads. It delivers 192.0 GPixel/s through 80 ROPs, a capability the MI300 lacks entirely. The B65 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300 lists no API support in the database. Clock speeds favor Intel, with a steady 2400 MHz on base and boost, which can benefit latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale across massive parallel arrays.

The B65 also wins on power efficiency per the recorded specifications. It draws 200 W versus 600 W, a threefold difference. It requires a 550 W suggested PSU versus 1000 W. Its physical footprint is a dual-slot design, while the MI300's slot width is not recorded. The B65 is marked as Active in production status, while the MI300's production status is not listed. Release dates differ: the MI300 launched on 2023-01-03, and the B65 is dated 2026-03-31.

Use-case splits follow these specifications. The MI300 is suited for compute-heavy, memory-bound tasks where display output is unnecessary. The B65 is suited for graphics-oriented professional work, including API-supported rendering and multi-display setups. The MI300's 0 ROP count and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate make it unsuitable for traditional graphics rasterization. The B65's 20 ray tracing cores add hardware support for ray-traced workloads, a feature the MI300 does not list.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products with fundamentally different purposes. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 is a data-center compute accelerator with no display outputs, no ROPs, and no recorded API support. Its strengths are FP32 and FP16 throughput, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity. The Intel Arc Pro B65 is a professional graphics card with display outputs, rasterization hardware, ray tracing cores, and full API support.

For compute workloads that require massive memory bandwidth and high FP32 or FP16 throughput, the MI300 is the only choice between these two based on the recorded specifications. It offers 6.55 TB/s of bandwidth and 128 GB of capacity, which the B65 cannot approach. For graphics workloads, including those needing DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, or Vulkan 1.4 support, the B65 is the only option, as the MI300 lists none of these APIs. The B65 also supports display output through four DisplayPort 2.1 connectors.

Power and cooling requirements differ sharply. The MI300 needs 600 W and a 1000 W suggested PSU. The B65 needs 200 W and a 550 W suggested PSU. Systems designed for the MI300 must account for its 267 mm length and 111 mm height, while the B65's dimensions are not recorded. The MI300 uses 2x 8-pin power connectors; the B65 uses 1x 8-pin.

Neither product has benchmark scores in the database, so percentile rankings of 50 for both reflect the absence of data rather than measured performance. Buyers should select based on the architectural fit: the MI300 for compute acceleration without display needs, the B65 for graphics and display workloads. The MI300's predecessor is listed as FirePro Data Center, while the B65 has no predecessor recorded. No successor is listed for either.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 records 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 records 12.29 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B65 support display outputs?

A: Yes, it has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 has no display outputs.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 6.55 TB/s bandwidth. The B65 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 608.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B65 has 20 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 does not list ray tracing cores.

Q: What power supply is suggested for each card?

A: The MI300 has a suggested PSU of 1000 W and a 600 W TDP. The B65 has a suggested PSU of 550 W and a 200 W TDP.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 released on 2023-01-03. The Intel Arc Pro B65 has a release date of 2026-03-31.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip based on CDNA 3.0 architecture, belonging to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation. The Intel Arc Pro B65 uses the BMG-G21 chip based on Xe2-HPG architecture, belonging to the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The MI300 has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, with a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The B65 has 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, with a density of 72.1M per mm². The MI300's die size and transistor count are far larger, reflecting a design aimed at maximum compute density. The B65's smaller die indicates a more modest scale, consistent with a professional graphics card rather than a data-center accelerator.

Shader resources differ substantially. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The B65 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The MI300 has no pixel rate (0 MPixel/s), while the B65 produces 192.0 GPixel/s. The MI300 has no ray tracing cores listed, while the B65 includes 20. Texture rate favors the MI300 at 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The MI300 uses HBM3 with 128 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 6.55 TB/s bandwidth. The B65 uses GDDR6 with 32 GB capacity, a 256-bit bus, and 608.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300's memory clock is 1600 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective speed, while the B65's memory clock is 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective. The MI300's wider bus compensates for its slower memory clock, resulting in far higher total bandwidth.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The B65 runs at a constant 2400 MHz for both base and boost. This makes the B65 a higher-clocked part, though with fewer compute units. Power delivery reflects the performance gap: the MI300 uses 2x 8-pin connectors with a 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested PSU, while the B65 uses 1x 8-pin with a 200 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU.

API support is only listed for the B65: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 lists no APIs. Display outputs exist only on the B65 with 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300 has no outputs. The B65 is dual-slot and marked Active in production status, while the MI300's slot width and production status are not recorded. The MI300's predecessor is FirePro Data Center; the B65 has no predecessor.