AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc B370 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A and Intel Arc B370 occupy completely separate positions in the database. The MI300A is a data center accelerator with a 50th percentile standing among all GPUs, while the Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile. Their benchmark portfolios do not overlap, so direct win counts are unavailable. Instead, the recorded data shows a clear split: the MI300A wins in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and shading capacity, while the Arc B370 wins in API feature support, power efficiency, and portability.

The MI300A is built for compute-heavy workloads. Its FP32 output reaches 81.72 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output reaches 653.7 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio. The Arc B370 manages 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The MI300A also carries 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, while the Arc B370 relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. Every major compute metric favors the MI300A.

The Arc B370 wins in areas the MI300A does not offer. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The Arc B370 is an IGP with a 25 W TDP and no power connectors, while the MI300A is an OAM module rated at 750 W with a suggested 1150 W PSU. The Arc B370 also has 10 ray tracing cores and 20 ROPs; the MI300A has 0 ROPs and no listed RT core count.

Architecture Differences

The two devices come from different manufacturers, foundries, and process nodes. The MI300A uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process. The Arc B370 uses Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm Intel process. The MI300A is labeled with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the Arc B370 uses Panther Lake.

Transistor counts and die sizes are only recorded for the MI300A. It packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a density of 150.4M transistors per mm². The Arc B370 lists unknown transistor count and die size. The MI300A is a massive chip; the Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor, which implies a much smaller footprint, though the database does not record its dimensions.

Shading hardware differs sharply. The MI300A has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Arc B370 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The MI300A has no listed RT cores or tensor cores; the Arc B370 lists 10 RT cores and no tensor cores. The MI300A's pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, while the Arc B370 reaches 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300A versus 96.00 GTexel/s for the Arc B370.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The MI300A uses dedicated HBM3 with 192 GB capacity, an 8192 bit bus, and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. Its memory clock is 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective. The Arc B370 uses system shared memory with no dedicated capacity, bus width, or bandwidth figures; its memory is marked as system dependent. The MI300A's memory clock is 2525 MHz, while the Arc B370 has no dedicated memory clock.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI300A has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 2100 MHz boost. The Arc B370 has a 300 MHz base and a 2400 MHz boost. The Arc B370 boosts higher, but the MI300A's massive shading unit count makes its raw throughput far larger.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two products. The Arc B370 has one recorded benchmark: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 1184. The MI300A has no recorded benchmarks and an average benchmark score of 0. The Arc B370's nearest rivals provide context: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (0.2% ahead), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% ahead), and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (1.4% behind). The Arc B370 sits just below those older parts in this single test, within a 2 percentage point band.

The MI300A cannot be compared on that test because no benchmark data exists for it. The database's percentile placement of 50 for the MI300A versus 5 for the Arc B370 indicates that the MI300A is positioned in the middle of all GPUs, while the Arc B370 is near the bottom. Without overlapping benchmark results, the compute metrics serve as the primary comparison. The MI300A's FP32 output is roughly 13.3 times the Arc B370's FP32 output, a ratio derived from the recorded figures. The FP16 difference is even larger: 653.7 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS.

The Arc B370's recorded 3DMark score suggests it performs in line with integrated or entry-level discrete GPUs from roughly a decade earlier. The MI300A's benchmark absence means its 50th percentile placement likely reflects its role as a compute accelerator rather than a graphics card. The data shows two devices designed for different workloads, and the only recorded benchmark belongs to the lower-powered part.

FAQ

Q: Which device has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A records 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc B370 records 6.144 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B370 support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The Arc B370 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The MI300A lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support.

Q: What memory configuration does each device use?

A: The MI300A uses 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192 bit bus and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which device has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc B370 boosts to 2400 MHz, which is higher than the MI300A's 2100 MHz boost clock.

Q: How much power does each device require?

A: The MI300A is rated at 750 W with a suggested 1150 W PSU. The Arc B370 is rated at 25 W and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What is the Arc B370's benchmark score?

A: The Arc B370 records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. Its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro M2000, scores 1168, which is 1.4% behind.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A is the choice for compute tasks that demand massive memory capacity and throughput. Its 192 GB HBM3 pool, 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 output place it in a different class. The 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs reflects its position as a data center part, not a gaming or workstation graphics card. The absence of display outputs, consumer APIs, and pixel rendering capability confirms that role.

The Intel Arc B370 is the choice for portable systems that need modern graphics API support and ray tracing. Its 10 RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and 25 W TDP make it suitable for integrated graphics duty. The 5th percentile ranking and the 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 place it near entry-level parts from an earlier era. Its nearest rivals are all older AMD and ATI parts with scores between 1168 and 1192, so the Arc B370 performs within a narrow band of those legacy GPUs.

The MI300A offers no ray tracing cores, no display outputs, and no consumer API support. The Arc B370 offers no dedicated memory and a fraction of the compute throughput. The recorded data does not support using either device for the other's intended workload. The MI300A is a compute accelerator with no graphics output; the Arc B370 is an integrated processor with no discrete memory. Each wins in its own domain, and the performance gap between them exceeds an order of magnitude in raw floating point throughput.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A | Intel Arc B370 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe3-LPG |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | unknown |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 10.3 TB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 40 |

| ROPs | 0 | 20 |

| RT Cores | null | 10 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 48.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 96.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 6.144 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 25 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | null | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | null | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2026-01-26 |

| Production Status | null | Active |