AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc A380E x2 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A and Intel Arc A380E x2 occupy entirely different segments of the GPU market, and the recorded data confirms there is no meaningful overlap in their intended use cases. The MI300A is a data center accelerator built around the CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 153,000 million transistors and a die size of 1017 mm². The Arc A380E x2 is an embedded GPU from Intel's Alchemist generation, built on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors and a die size of 157 mm².

The data shows the MI300A delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That is a 20x gap in raw single-precision throughput. In FP16, the MI300A reaches 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1 ratio), while the Arc A380E x2 reaches 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a difference of roughly 80x. Memory capacity follows the same pattern: the MI300A has 192 GB of HBM3 with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, while the Arc A380E x2 has 6 GB of GDDR6 with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The bandwidth gap is approximately 55x.

Given this data, the MI300A is the choice for compute-heavy workloads such as large-scale AI training, scientific simulation, or any task where massive memory capacity and bandwidth are required. The Arc A380E x2, with its 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, is suited for multi-display embedded systems, signage, or visualization tasks where the MI300A cannot function because it has no display outputs at all. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and requires a 1150 W suggested PSU, whereas the Arc A380E x2 has a TDP of 130 W and a 300 W suggested PSU. The power envelope difference is substantial, but the benchmark database does not include efficiency metrics, so no direct efficiency comparison can be made from the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A, with 81.72 TFLOPS, compared to the Intel Arc A380E x2's 4.096 TFLOPS. The MI300A is exactly 20 times higher in FP32 throughput.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The MI300A uses 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A380E x2 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300A has 32 times the memory capacity and roughly 55 times the bandwidth.

Q: Does the MI300A support display outputs?

A: No. The MI300A has no display outputs. The Arc A380E x2 has 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it the only one of the two that can drive monitors directly.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc A380E x2 has a TDP of 130 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The MI300A uses no power connectors (OAM Module form factor), while the Arc A380E x2 uses one 6-pin connector.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MI300A has 19,456 shading units, while the Arc A380E x2 has 1,024 shading units. The MI300A also has 1,216 TMUs versus 64 TMUs for the Arc A380E x2, and the MI300A has 0 ROPs while the Arc A380E x2 has 32 ROPs.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The MI300A's production status is not recorded in the database. The Arc A380E x2 is marked as end-of-life, with its successor listed as Battlemage.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, which is AMD's compute-focused design lineage. Its chip is named Aqua Vanjaram, and it belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation. The architecture is built around massive parallel compute arrays, with 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, but notably 0 ROPs and no pixel rate. This indicates the MI300A is not designed for rasterization or display output; its 0 MPixel/s pixel rate confirms that. The MI300A supports FP16 at an 8:1 ratio relative to FP32, meaning it can perform 653.7 TFLOPS of FP16 work, which is typical for accelerators prioritizing AI and HPC workloads where reduced precision is acceptable.

The Arc A380E x2 uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically from the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, with the DG2-128 chip. This architecture includes 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, giving it a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s. It also has 8 ray tracing cores, which the MI300A does not list. The Arc A380E x2 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI300A has no recorded API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. This reinforces that the Arc A380E x2 is a graphics-oriented part, while the MI300A is compute-only.

The foundry and process node differ: both use TSMC, but the MI300A is on 5 nm while the Arc A380E x2 is on 6 nm. Transistor density illustrates the design difference: the MI300A packs 150.4 million transistors per mm², while the Arc A380E x2 has 45.9 million per mm². The MI300A's die is 1017 mm², over six times larger than the Arc A380E x2's 157 mm² die. The MI300A's bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc A380E x2 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the Arc A380E x2 has both base and boost clocks locked at 2000 MHz. Memory clocks: the MI300A runs at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective, while the Arc A380E x2 runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration diverges sharply. The MI300A has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A380E x2 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300A has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Arc A380E x2 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI300A has no recorded ray tracing cores, while the Arc A380E x2 has 8.

Texture and pixel rates: the MI300A achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s with 0 MPixel/s, while the Arc A380E x2 achieves 128.0 GTexel/s with 64.00 GPixel/s. FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300A versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the Arc A380E x2. FP16 throughput is 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) for the MI300A versus 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Arc A380E x2.

Power and physical specifications: the MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, in an OAM Module slot width. The Arc A380E x2 has a TDP of 130 W with one 6-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W, in a single-slot form factor. Dimensions are only recorded for the Arc A380E x2: 265 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width. The MI300A has no recorded dimensions. The Arc A380E x2 has 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs; the MI300A has none. Release dates: the MI300A was released on 2023-12-05, while the Arc A380E x2 was released on 2024-03-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two GPUs, and neither has an average benchmark score above zero. Both are listed at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, which is the neutral default in the database when no benchmark data is present. The wins count is 0 for both the MI300A and the Arc A380E x2.

Without recorded benchmark results, the comparison must rely on the specification data. The MI300A dominates in compute throughput: 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.096 TFLOPS, which is a 20x advantage. In FP16, the MI300A's 653.7 TFLOPS versus the Arc A380E x2's 8.192 TFLOPS represents an 80x advantage. Texture rate favors the MI300A at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, roughly a 20x gap. Memory bandwidth favors the MI300A at 10.3 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, roughly a 55x gap.

The Arc A380E x2 wins on pixel throughput, with 64.00 GPixel/s versus the MI300A's 0 MPixel/s. It also has 32 ROPs and 8 ray tracing cores where the MI300A has none recorded. The Arc A380E x2 has a higher base clock (2000 MHz versus 1000 MHz) and a slightly lower boost clock (2000 MHz versus 2100 MHz). The Arc A380E x2 also has a lower TDP (130 W versus 750 W) and a lower suggested PSU (300 W versus 1150 W), but the database does not include efficiency metrics, so a direct performance-per-watt comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins decisively in compute-bound and memory-bound workloads. Its 192 GB HBM3 pool with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth is orders of magnitude larger and faster than the Arc A380E x2's 6 GB GDDR6. For tasks like large model inference, scientific computing, or any FP32-heavy workload, the MI300A's 81.72 TFLOPS is 20 times the Arc A380E x2's 4.096 TFLOPS. The FP16 advantage of 653.7 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS makes the MI300A the clear choice for AI training where reduced precision is used. The MI300A also has a wider PCIe interface (PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8), reducing data transfer bottlenecks.

The Arc A380E x2 wins in graphics output and display-centric tasks. It has 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the MI300A has no display outputs at all. The Arc A380E x2's 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 32 ROPs enable rasterization work that the MI300A cannot perform, given its 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The Arc A380E x2 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300A has no recorded API support. For embedded systems requiring multiple displays, the Arc A380E x2 is the only viable option between the two.

The Arc A380E x2 also wins on physical integration flexibility. It is single-slot, 265 mm long, 127 mm high, and 20 mm wide, with a 130 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU. The MI300A is an OAM Module with a 750 W TDP and a 1150 W suggested PSU, requiring substantially more power delivery and cooling infrastructure. The Arc A380E x2 is marked end-of-life with Battlemage as its successor, while the MI300A has no recorded successor. The MI300A's predecessor is FirePro Data Center, while the Arc A380E x2's predecessor is Xe Graphics.