AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc B390 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A and the Intel Arc B390. This absence is itself informative, as the two products occupy entirely different segments of the hardware landscape. The AMD part is a data center accelerator with a recorded percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs, while the Intel part is an integrated graphics solution with a percentile rank of 9.

For the Intel Arc B390, the only recorded benchmark is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where it scores 1482 points. The nearest rivals in the database for this chip are all low-end NVIDIA parts. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463 points, putting the Arc B390 1.3 percent ahead. The GeForce 800M scores 1460 points, a 1.5 percent gap. The GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446 points, a 2.5 percent gap. The GeForce GT 710 scores 1443 points, a 2.7 percent gap. These deltas are small, indicating that the Arc B390's performance sits just above a cluster of entry-level discrete GPUs from previous generations.

The AMD MI300A has no benchmark scores recorded in the database, and its average benchmark score is listed as zero. The data shows no nearest rivals for this part either. The percentile rank of 50 suggests it lands in the middle of the distribution when compared against all GPUs, but without concrete scores, direct numerical comparison is impossible. The absence of benchmark data for the MI300A means the recorded wins for each product remain at zero for both sides.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries and use different process nodes. The AMD MI300A uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Arc B390 uses a 3 nm process from Intel. The AMD chip integrates 153,000 million transistors on a die size of 1017 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel part has unknown transistor counts and die size, so density cannot be calculated.

The architecture names reveal the design intent. AMD uses CDNA 3.0, which is a compute-focused architecture for data center workloads. Intel uses Xe3-LPG, an integrated graphics architecture designed for mobile processors. The AMD chip is named Aqua Vanjaram, while the Intel chip is based on Panther Lake, a processor platform.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The AMD part has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The Intel chip boosts higher but starts much lower, indicating a power-adaptive design typical of integrated graphics. Memory clocks are also different: the AMD part runs at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel part uses system shared memory with no dedicated clock.

Shader resources are massively different. The AMD MI300A has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, with zero ROPs. The Intel Arc B390 has 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Intel part also includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part lists no ray tracing cores in the database. Pixel rate for the AMD part is 0 MPixel/s, while the Intel part achieves 60.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate for the AMD part is 2,553.6 GTexel/s, compared to 120.0 GTexel/s for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc B390 wins in scenarios involving pixel output and ray tracing. Its 24 ROPs and 12 ray tracing cores enable a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s, which is meaningful for graphics rendering. The AMD MI300A has zero ROPs and no recorded ray tracing cores, making it unsuited for traditional rasterization or ray-traced graphics workloads. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part lists no API support in the database.

The AMD MI300A wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS, compared to 7.680 TFLOPS for the Intel part. That is roughly 10.6 times higher. FP16 performance shows an even wider gap: the AMD part delivers 653.7 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio, while the Intel part delivers 15.36 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD chip also has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.

For data center workloads such as large model inference or scientific simulation, the AMD part's massive memory pool and bandwidth are decisive. For mobile or integrated graphics usage, the Intel part's low power draw of 80 W and compact IGP form factor make it practical. The AMD part consumes 750 W and uses an OAM module slot, requiring a suggested PSU of 1150 W.

FAQ

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two?

A: FP32 compute. The AMD MI300A delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS. That is approximately 10.6 times higher for the AMD part.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B390 support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The database lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support for the Intel part. The AMD MI300A has no API support listed.

Q: How much memory does each product have?

A: The AMD MI300A has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus. The Intel Arc B390 uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: Which product has ray tracing capabilities?

A: The Intel Arc B390 includes 12 ray tracing cores. The AMD MI300A lists no ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The AMD MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and requires a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel Arc B390 has a TDP of 80 W and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database shows it scoring 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3 percent ahead of the GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5 percent ahead of the GeForce 800M, 2.5 percent ahead of the GeForce GT 625 OEM, and 2.7 percent ahead of the GeForce GT 710.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A | Intel Arc B390 |

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

| 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 | 2500 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 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 48 |

| ROPs | 0 | 24 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | null | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 60.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 120.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 7.680 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) | 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 80 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 |

| Production Status | null | Active |

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

| Predecessor | FirePro Data Center | null |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 9 |

The Verdict

The data indicates two products with fundamentally different design targets. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A is a data center accelerator with enormous compute throughput, 192 GB of HBM3 memory, and 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. Its lack of ROPs, display outputs, and graphics API support confirms it is not intended for rendering. The 750 W power draw and OAM module form factor place it firmly in server racks.

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor within the Panther Lake platform. Its 80 W TDP, IGP slot width, and portable device dependent display outputs indicate a mobile or low-power system component. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 places it slightly above old entry-level discrete GPUs, with the nearest rival being the GeForce GT 520MX at 1.3 percent behind.

The choice depends on workload. For compute-heavy tasks such as large-scale matrix operations, the MI300A's FP32 and FP16 figures are orders of magnitude higher. For graphics rendering in a portable device, the Arc B390 provides modern API support, ray tracing cores, and a practical pixel rate. The database records no shared benchmark between the two, so any direct comparison must rely on architectural specifications rather than measured performance parity. The release dates also differ by more than two years, with the AMD part launching in December 2023 and the Intel part arriving in January 2026. The production status for the AMD part is not recorded, while the Intel part is listed as active. Users seeking a data center accelerator should examine the MI300A's compute and memory specifications. Users seeking integrated graphics for a portable system should consider the Arc B390 based on its recorded benchmark and API support.