AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A or the Intel Arc A310E. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. The percentile ranking against all GPUs is identical for both parts at the 50th percentile, which indicates neither product has been tested in the database with measurable workloads.

Without direct performance measurements, the comparison must rely on the architectural specifications and compute capabilities recorded in the database. The MI300A delivers an FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. This represents a 26.6x difference in single-precision floating-point performance, a ratio that dwarfs any typical workload variation. For FP16 workloads, the MI300A reaches 653.7 TFLOPS using an 8:1 ratio, while the Arc A310E reaches 6.144 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio. The MI300A's FP16 advantage is 106.4x, even accounting for the different ratio conventions.

The texture processing rates show a similar chasm. The MI300A achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Arc A310E achieves 64.00 GTexel/s, a 39.9x difference. The MI300A has no pixel output capability, recording 0 MPixel/s, whereas the Arc A310E produces 32.00 GPixel/s. This inverts the expected relationship: the data center accelerator cannot drive displays, while the compact Intel part has dedicated rasterization output.

The database records zero wins for either product in the head-to-head category. The absence of benchmark entries means the wins tally remains unpopulated. The comparative analysis therefore shifts to what the specifications indicate about intended workloads and system integration.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Arc A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-128 chip, also produced by TSMC but on a 6 nm process. The node difference is one generation apart, yet the transistor counts diverge enormously. The MI300A integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Arc A310E integrates 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The MI300A packs 21.25x more transistors onto a 6.48x larger die.

The MI300A belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation and was released on December 5, 2023. Its predecessor is listed as FirePro Data Center. The Arc A310E belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, released on March 31, 2024, with a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage. The production status for the Arc A310E is marked end-of-life, while the MI300A has no production status recorded.

Memory subsystems differ in every measurable aspect. The MI300A carries 192 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A310E carries 4 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 64-bit bus, yielding 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI300A's memory bandwidth is 83.1x higher. The MI300A's memory clock is recorded as 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective, while the Arc A310E's memory clock is 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective. The effective data rate favors the Intel part per pin, but the bus width difference overwhelms that advantage.

Compute unit configurations reveal the scale gap. The MI300A has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, with no ROPs recorded. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MI300A also has no ray tracing cores listed, while the Arc A310E includes 6 ray tracing cores. Neither part lists tensor cores in the database. The MI300A's clock profile runs from 1000 MHz base to 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost.

Thermal and power specifications reflect the divergent positioning. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI300A uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors listed, while the Arc A310E uses a Single-slot form factor, also with no power connectors listed. The MI300A has no display outputs, while the Arc A310E provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.

FAQ

Q: Which product has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The MI300A records 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 653.7 TFLOPS FP16, while the Arc A310E records 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS FP16. The MI300A leads by 26.6x in FP32 and 106.4x in FP16.

Q: Do both products support the same bus interface?

A: No. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300A's interface provides more lanes and a newer generation.

Q: Can either product output video to displays?

A: Only the Arc A310E has display outputs, offering 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0. The MI300A records no outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

Q: What is the memory capacity and bandwidth difference?

A: The MI300A has 192 GB of HBM3 with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300A provides 48x more capacity and 83.1x more bandwidth.

Q: Which product has a smaller physical footprint?

A: The Arc A310E is a Single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The MI300A uses an OAM Module form factor with no dimensions recorded.

Q: What API support does the Arc A310E offer?

A: The Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A records no API support values in the database.

The Verdict

The data presents two products with almost no overlap in purpose. The MI300A is a data center accelerator with massive memory, extreme bandwidth, and compute throughput aimed at HPC workloads. The Arc A310E is a low-power, single-slot graphics card with display outputs and ray tracing support, suited for embedded or client-side rendering tasks.

The MI300A wins on every compute metric where both parts have recorded values: FP32, FP16, texture rate, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and transistor count. The Arc A310E wins on pixel rate, display outputs, ray tracing cores, and power efficiency. The MI300A consumes 10x the TDP of the Arc A310E (750 W versus 75 W), and its suggested PSU rating of 1150 W versus 250 W reflects the system-level investment required.

The Arc A310E is marked end-of-life with a successor named Battlemage, while the MI300A has no successor recorded. The production status difference suggests the Intel part is at the end of its lifecycle, while the AMD part remains current in the database.

For workloads requiring dense FP32 or FP16 computation, the MI300A's 81.72 TFLOPS and 653.7 TFLOPS are the only relevant figures. For workloads requiring video output or ray tracing, the Arc A310E is the only option with those capabilities. The MI300A's 192 GB of HBM3 memory supports model sizes that the Arc A310E's 4 GB GDDR6 cannot approach.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A | Intel Arc A310E |

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

| 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 | 2100 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2525 MHz, 10.1 Gbps effective | 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 10.3 TB/s | 124.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19,456 | 768 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 32 |

| ROPs | 0 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None listed | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 32.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 64.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2024-03-31 |

| Production Status | Not recorded | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | FirePro Data Center | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | None recorded | Battlemage |

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins decisively in compute density. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 output is 26.6x the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. The FP16 gap is even larger at 106.4x, though the different ratio conventions (8:1 versus 2:1) complicate direct comparison. The texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s gives the MI300A a 39.9x advantage in texture-heavy workloads.

The MI300A wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. The 192 GB HBM3 pool with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth supports large datasets and high-throughput streaming. The Arc A310E's 4 GB GDDR6 with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth is 48x smaller in capacity and 83.1x slower in bandwidth. The MI300A's 8192-bit bus width versus the Arc A310E's 64-bit bus width explains the bandwidth gap.

The Arc A310E wins in rasterization and display. Its 32.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 16 ROPs enable rendering output, while the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s and no ROPs. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs allow direct display connection, which the MI300A lacks entirely.

The Arc A310E wins in power efficiency. The 75 W TDP versus 750 W TDP means the Intel part uses 10x less power. The suggested PSU of 250 W versus 1150 W further separates the system power requirements. The Arc A310E also includes 6 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the MI300A's recorded specifications.

The Arc A310E wins in API support. It lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A records no API support values, indicating its driver stack targets compute frameworks rather than graphics APIs.

The MI300A wins in interface bandwidth. PCIe 5.0 x16 provides more lanes and a newer generation than PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300A also wins in transistor density at 150.4M / mm² versus 45.9M / mm², though both parts use TSMC fabrication.

The release timeline favors the MI300A in longevity. Its December 2023 release date and unrecorded production status contrast with the Arc A310E's March 2024 release and end-of-life status. The Arc A310E's successor, Battlemage, is named in the database, while no successor exists for the MI300A.