AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

The data places the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 and Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile at opposite extremes of the GPU spectrum. The MI300 is a data-center accelerator built for massive compute throughput, while the Intel part is an integrated graphics solution for low-power mobile devices. Benchmark results confirm that these products serve entirely different workloads, and the recorded specifications show no overlap in performance class.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 is the clear choice for compute-heavy data center tasks. Its FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS and FP16 throughput of 383.0 TFLOPS (8:1) place it in a performance tier that the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile cannot approach. The Intel part delivers 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 (2:1), which is suitable for basic display output and light media workloads. The MI300 uses HBM3 memory with 128 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 6.55 TB/s bandwidth, while the Intel GPU relies on System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. The MI300 also has 14080 shading units versus 192 on the Intel part, and its texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s dwarfs the Intel GPU's 12.00 GTexel/s. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is the appropriate option for portable devices where the 6 W TDP and integrated nature are essential. The MI300 requires 600 W and a 1000 W suggested PSU, making it unsuitable for mobile use. The data shows no scenario where the Intel part competes with the MI300 on raw performance, and no scenario where the MI300 fits the Intel part's power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with the chip named Aqua Vanjaram. It integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, with the chip named Twin Lake. The MI300 is part of the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation, while the Intel part belongs to the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation. The MI300 has 880 texture mapping units and zero ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, which indicates it is not designed for rasterized display output. The Intel part has 12 TMUs and 4 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 4.000 GPixel/s, allowing it to drive portable device displays. The MI300 has no display outputs, while the Intel part lists Portable Device Dependent outputs. The MI300 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, and the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. The MI300's power connectors are 2x 8-pin, and the Intel part has no power connectors listed. The MI300 does not report DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API versions, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status for the MI300 is not recorded, but the Intel part is listed as Active. The release dates differ, with the MI300 released in 2023-01-03 and the Intel part in 2024-12-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products, and the wins counters show zero for both sides. However, the recorded specification data provides a basis for comparison. The MI300's FP32 throughput is 47.87 TFLOPS, which is approximately 125 times the Intel part's 384.0 GFLOPS. The FP16 comparison shows the MI300 at 383.0 TFLOPS (8:1) versus the Intel part's 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1), a difference of roughly 500 times. The texture rate comparison shows the MI300 at 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s, a factor of approximately 125. The pixel rate comparison is notable: the MI300 records 0 MPixel/s while the Intel part records 4.000 GPixel/s, meaning the Intel GPU is the only one of the two capable of pixel output. The memory bandwidth comparison is equally lopsided: 6.55 TB/s for the MI300 versus System Dependent for the Intel part, which means the Intel GPU's bandwidth cannot be quantified in the same units. The shading unit count of 14080 versus 192 shows a 73-fold difference. The clock speeds differ as well, with the MI300 running a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1700 MHz, while the Intel part runs a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 1000 MHz. The MI300's memory clock is 1600 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, while the Intel part uses System Shared memory. The transistor count for the Intel part is unknown, so no density comparison is possible for that field.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in every major specification field. The process node is 5 nm for the MI300 versus 10 nm for the Intel part. The foundry is TSMC for the MI300 and Intel for the Intel part. Transistor count is 153,000 million for the MI300 and unknown for the Intel part. Die size is 1017 mm² for the MI300 and unknown for the Intel part. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300 and null for the Intel part. Base clock is 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz. Boost clock is 1700 MHz versus 1000 MHz. Memory size is 128 GB versus System Shared. Memory type is HBM3 versus System Shared. Bus width is 8192 bit versus System Shared. Bandwidth is 6.55 TB/s versus System Dependent. Shading units are 14080 versus 192. TMUs are 880 versus 12. ROPs are 0 versus 4. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 47.87 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. FP16 is 383.0 TFLOPS (8:1) versus 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 600 W versus 6 W. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, and the Intel part uses Ring Bus. Display outputs are No outputs for the MI300 and Portable Device Dependent for the Intel part. The MI300 has a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches) and a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the Intel part has no recorded dimensions and is classified as IGP slot width. The MI300 has a suggested PSU of 1000 W, and the Intel part has none. The MI300 has 2x 8-pin power connectors, and the Intel part has none. The Intel part lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, while the MI300 lists no API versions. The production status is Active for the Intel part and null for the MI300.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS FP32.

Q: What type of memory does each GPU use?

A: The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 6.55 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: Can the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 output to a display?

A: No. The MI300 lists No outputs and has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile lists Portable Device Dependent outputs and has a pixel rate of 4.000 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MI300 has 14080 shading units. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has 192 shading units.

Q: What API support does the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile provide?

A: It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 lists no API versions in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 wins in compute throughput across FP32 and FP16 workloads, with 47.87 TFLOPS and 383.0 TFLOPS respectively. It also leads in memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth, offering 128 GB, 8192 bit, and 6.55 TB/s. Its texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s and shading unit count of 14080 confirm its design for parallel compute tasks. The MI300 is the only one of the two with a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, a 5 nm process, and a 153,000 million transistor count. Its 1017 mm² die and 150.4M per mm² density reflect a high-end accelerator layout. The MI300's release date of 2023-01-03 and its predecessor class, FirePro Data Center, place it in the data center lineage.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in power efficiency and display capability. Its 6 W TDP is 1% of the MI300's 600 W TDP. It is the only one of the two with ROPs, recording 4 ROPs and a pixel rate of 4.000 GPixel/s. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300 lists no API support. The Intel part is classified as IGP, uses a Ring Bus, and has no power connectors, making it suitable for integrated mobile designs. Its production status is Active, and its release date of 2024-12-31 is later than the MI300's. The Intel part uses a 10 nm Intel process, while the MI300 uses a 5 nm TSMC process. The Intel part's FP16 rate of 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) is higher than its FP32 rate relative to the MI300's ratio, indicating a different compute ratio design. The Intel part has no recorded dimensions, consistent with an integrated component, while the MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The data shows that the MI300 is for compute density and the Intel part is for integrated mobile graphics. Neither product can substitute for the other in their respective target environments.