AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 vs Intel Arc Pro B70 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 and the Intel Arc Pro B70?

A: The MI300 is built on AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the Arc Pro B70 uses Intel's Xe2-HPG architecture with the BMG-G31 chip. Both are manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the MI300 uses a much larger die.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between these two cards?

A: The MI300 comes with 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.55 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B70 offers 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 608.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI300 has more than ten times the memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance?

A: The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Arc Pro B70 provides 22.94 TFLOPS. This means the MI300 is roughly 2.1 times faster in single-precision floating-point workloads.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and requires a 1000 W suggested power supply with two 8-pin connectors. The Arc Pro B70 has a TDP of 230 W, needs a 550 W power supply, and uses a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card supports display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 has no display outputs, making it a pure compute accelerator. The Intel Arc Pro B70 includes 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, allowing direct display connectivity.

Q: What is the difference in release timing?

A: The AMD MI300 was released on January 3, 2023. The Intel Arc Pro B70 is slated for release on March 25, 2026, more than three years later.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 is positioned for compute-heavy data center workloads. Its advantages are substantial in raw throughput metrics. The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32, which is more than double the Arc Pro B70's 22.94 TFLOPS. In FP16, the MI300 reaches 383.0 TFLOPS using an 8:1 ratio, while the Arc Pro B70 manages 45.88 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The texture rate also favors AMD significantly, with 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus Intel's 716.8 GTexel/s.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are areas where the MI300 dominates outright. With 128 GB of HBM3 and 6.55 TB/s bandwidth, it handles datasets that the Arc Pro B70's 32 GB of GDDR6 at 608.0 GB/s cannot approach. The 8192-bit memory bus versus the 256-bit bus further illustrates the massive difference in memory subsystem scale.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 wins in areas relevant to professional graphics and workstation use. It has 128 ROPs delivering 358.4 GPixel/s, while the MI300 has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The Arc Pro B70 includes 32 ray tracing cores, which the MI300 lacks entirely. Display outputs are present on the Intel card, with 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, whereas the MI300 has no outputs at all.

The Intel card also wins on power efficiency and physical design. Its 230 W TDP is far lower than the 600 W TDP of the MI300, and it requires a 550 W power supply versus the 1000 W suggested for AMD. The Arc Pro B70 is a dual-slot card with a width of 39 mm, while the MI300's slot width is not specified. The Intel card runs at significantly higher clocks, with a 2280 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost, compared to the MI300's 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, a design optimized for data center compute rather than graphics rendering. The chip, named Aqua Vanjaram, is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC and contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The architecture prioritizes raw compute throughput, which is reflected in the absence of ROPs and display outputs.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage generation for the Pro Series. The BMG-G31 chip is also built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the die size is 368 mm². The transistor count is listed as unknown in the database. The Xe2-HPG architecture includes dedicated ray tracing cores, with 32 such units present. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI300 has no API support fields recorded.

The MI300 has 14,080 shading units and 880 texture mapping units. The Arc Pro B70 has 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs. The AMD card's FP16 performance of 383.0 TFLOPS uses an 8:1 ratio, meaning it trades FP32 throughput for FP16 at a ratio of eight-to-one. The Intel card's FP16 of 45.88 TFLOPS uses a 2:1 ratio, indicating a more balanced approach to mixed-precision workloads.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI300 uses HBM3 stacked memory with an 8192-bit interface, while the Arc Pro B70 uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The MI300's memory clock is 1600 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective speed. The Intel card runs at 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective. Despite the higher clock on the Intel card, the MI300's much wider bus delivers far greater total bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 | Intel Arc Pro B70 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe2-HPG |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | BMG-G31 |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 368 mm² |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | unknown |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2280 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 2800 MHz |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 6.55 TB/s | 608.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 14080 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 880 | 256 |

| ROPs | 0 | 128 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | null | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 358.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 716.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.87 TFLOPS | 22.94 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 383.0 TFLOPS (8:1) | 45.88 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 230 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX Support | null | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | null | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | null | 1.4 |

| Dimensions (LxH) | 267 mm x 111 mm | 267 mm x 110 mm |

| Width | null | 39 mm |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2026-03-25 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark scores for these two cards. The wins and benchmark arrays are empty, and both cards have an identical percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs. The average benchmark score for each is zero. Without direct measurements, the comparison relies entirely on the recorded specification data.

The largest single-specification gap appears in memory bandwidth. The MI300's 6.55 TB/s is approximately 10.8 times the Arc Pro B70's 608.0 GB/s. This difference is more pronounced than any other metric. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound, such as large model inference or scientific simulation, this advantage is decisive.

FP32 compute shows the MI300 at 47.87 TFLOPS, which is 2.09 times the Arc Pro B70's 22.94 TFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is more complex due to different ratios. The MI300's 383.0 TFLOPS at 8:1 is 8.35 times the Intel card's 45.88 TFLOPS at 2:1, but the ratio difference means the MI300 trades more FP32 capability to achieve that FP16 number.

Texture rate favors the MI300 at 1,496.0 GTexel/s, which is 2.09 times the Arc Pro B70's 716.8 GTexel/s, matching the FP32 ratio exactly. Pixel rate goes entirely to the Intel card, since the MI300 has no ROPs. The Arc Pro B70's 358.4 GPixel/s represents capability the AMD card simply does not have.

Clock speeds show the Intel card running much faster. The Arc Pro B70 boosts to 2800 MHz versus the MI300's 1700 MHz, a 1.65 times difference. Base clocks are even more divergent, with Intel at 2280 MHz and AMD at 1000 MHz, a 2.28 times difference. These higher clocks help the Intel card partially compensate for its smaller compute unit count.

Memory clocks also favor Intel in raw frequency. The Arc Pro B70's 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective compares to the MI300's 1600 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective. The Intel card runs its GDDR6 at nearly three times the effective speed, but the MI300's 8192-bit bus overwhelms this advantage in total bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data describes two cards with fundamentally different purposes. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 is a data center compute accelerator with no display outputs, no ROPs, and no ray tracing cores. It delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, 383.0 TFLOPS FP16, and 6.55 TB/s of memory bandwidth from 128 GB of HBM3. These specifications point to high-performance computing, AI training, and large-scale inference workloads where memory capacity and bandwidth are the primary constraints.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 is a professional graphics card with display outputs, 128 ROPs, 32 ray tracing cores, and API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It runs at higher clocks, uses much less power at 230 W, and fits in a dual-slot form factor with a 39 mm width. Its 22.94 TFLOPS FP32 and 358.4 GPixel/s pixel rate serve rendering, visualization, and content creation tasks.

The MI300 should be selected for compute-focused deployments where raw throughput and massive memory capacity matter. Its 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die and 600 W TDP indicate a design built for maximum performance without concern for power efficiency or physical size. The Arc Pro B70 should be chosen for professional workstations where display output, ray tracing, and modest power requirements are necessary. Its 32 GB of GDDR6 and 608.0 GB/s bandwidth remain substantial for graphics workloads.

The three-year release gap from January 2023 to March 2026 also matters. The MI300 represents an earlier generation of data center silicon, while the Arc Pro B70 is a later product in Intel's Battlemage generation. Despite the later release, the Intel card does not approach the AMD card's compute or memory specifications. The database shows the MI300 leading in every raw throughput metric except pixel rate, where it has no capability.

Neither card has recorded benchmark scores, so the percentile ranking of 50 for both indicates they sit at the median of the database's GPU population. The absence of head-to-head data means these conclusions derive from specification comparison rather than measured performance. Users should weigh the specific requirements of their workloads against the recorded specifications to determine which card fits their needs.