AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc B770 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A and the Intel Arc B770. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0 and no nearest rivals are listed in the database. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical at 50 for both parts, which places them at the midpoint of the recorded distribution, but this equal percentile does not reflect any measured performance equivalence. The absence of benchmark entries means there are no wins to attribute to either product in a direct comparison. The AMD part reports an FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Intel part reports 19.66 TFLOPS, a gap that would imply a substantial difference in raw compute if benchmark scores were present, but the database does not currently contain the matching performance data to confirm this. Similarly, FP16 rates differ sharply, with the MI300A at 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) and the Arc B770 at 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1), yet again no benchmark scores translate these specifications into measured results. Texture rates show 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the AMD product versus 614.4 GTexel/s for the Intel product, and pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s for the MI300A against 307.2 GPixel/s for the Arc B770. Without head-to-head entries, the database cannot confirm how these specification differences manifest in actual application performance. The wins counters for both items are set to 0, indicating that the database has not yet recorded any benchmark victories for either product in this pairing.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture with a chip design named Aqua Vanjaram, while the Arc B770 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture with the BMG-G31 chip. Both are manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes diverge dramatically. The MI300A integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc B770 die size is 368 mm², but its transistor count is recorded as unknown, so no density figure can be calculated for the Intel part. This difference in die area suggests the AMD accelerator is designed for a much larger scale of compute, consistent with its role in the Radeon Instinct generation, whereas the Intel product belongs to the Battlemage generation within the Arc 7 family.

The memory subsystems represent another major architectural split. The MI300A uses 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192 bit bus, delivering 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc B770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus, with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part therefore carries 12 times the memory capacity and roughly 20 times the memory bandwidth on paper. Clock behavior also differs: the MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the Arc B770 has a base clock of 2100 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The Intel part operates at higher clock speeds, but the AMD part compensates with far more execution resources. The MI300A has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, while the Arc B770 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The AMD accelerator also reports 0 pixel rate, consistent with a compute-oriented product that has no display outputs, whereas the Arc B770 has a pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s and includes 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The MI300A lists no RT cores, while the Arc B770 includes 32 RT cores. Neither product lists tensor cores in the database.

The power and interface profiles reinforce the architectural divide. The MI300A is rated at 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, uses an OAM Module slot width, and has no power connectors listed because it relies on board-level power delivery. The Arc B770 is rated at 225 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 550 W, uses a Dual-slot design, and requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. The MI300A connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc B770 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. API support also differs: the Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part has no API entries recorded. The MI300A has no display outputs, no APIs listed, and a release date of 2023-12-05, while the Arc B770 has a release date of 2025-12-31. The AMD product lists its predecessor as FirePro Data Center, and the Intel product lists Alchemist as its predecessor.

The Verdict

The data in the database draws a clear line between two different product categories. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A is a compute accelerator with an OAM Module form factor, no display outputs, no API support, and a 750 W TDP. The Intel Arc B770 is a consumer-facing graphics card with display outputs, full API support, a dual-slot design, and a 225 W TDP. Anyone selecting between these two based strictly on the recorded information should note that they are not competing in the same segment. The MI300A offers 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and 653.7 TFLOPS FP16, which positions it as a data center part. The Arc B770 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, 19.66 TFLOPS FP32, and 39.32 TFLOPS FP16, which positions it as a graphics card for rendering and gaming workloads. The absence of benchmark entries and nearest rivals means the database cannot confirm relative performance, but the specification sheet alone indicates the MI300A is designed for a fundamentally different workload class. The Arc B770 has 32 RT cores and a 307.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, features that the MI300A lacks entirely. The MI300A has no ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, which makes sense for a product with no display path. The Arc B770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300A has none of these recorded. The verdict from the data is that the MI300A should be chosen for compute tasks that need massive memory capacity and bandwidth, while the Arc B770 should be chosen for graphics workloads that require rasterization, ray tracing, and display output. The database does not provide enough evidence to declare one objectively superior.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The MI300A uses a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the Arc B770 also uses 5 nm at TSMC but has an unknown transistor count on a 368 mm² die. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the AMD part and not listed for the Intel part. Base clocks are 1000 MHz for the MI300A versus 2100 MHz for the Arc B770. Boost clocks are 2100 MHz versus 2400 MHz. Memory clocks are 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective for the AMD product, and 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for the Intel product. Memory size is 192 GB HBM3 for the MI300A versus 16 GB GDDR6 for the Arc B770. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Memory bandwidth is 10.3 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Shading units are 19,456 versus 4,096. TMUs are 1,216 versus 256. ROPs are 0 versus 128. RT cores are not listed versus 32. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 307.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS. FP16 is 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) versus 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 750 W versus 225 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus Dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 1150 W versus 550 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are none versus 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. DirectX support is not listed versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL support is not listed versus 4.6. Vulkan support is not listed versus 1.4. Release dates are 2023-12-05 for the MI300A and 2025-12-31 for the Arc B770. Predecessors are FirePro Data Center versus Alchemist. Both share the same manufacturer process node and foundry, but everything else on the specification sheet differs.

FAQ

Q: How much memory does the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A have?

A: The MI300A has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192 bit bus with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: How much memory does the Intel Arc B770 have?

A: The Arc B770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256 bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each product?

A: The MI300A delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: No. The Arc B770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A has no API entries recorded in the database.

Q: Does the MI300A have display outputs?

A: No. The MI300A has no display outputs, while the Arc B770 includes 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The MI300A is rated at 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc B770 is rated at 225 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins on raw compute scale. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 figure is over four times the 19.66 TFLOPS of the Arc B770. Its FP16 rate of 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) dwarfs the 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1) of the Intel part. Memory capacity is 192 GB versus 16 GB, and memory bandwidth is 10.3 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. The MI300A also has more shading units (19,456 versus 4,096), more TMUs (1,216 versus 256), and a higher texture rate (2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s). The AMD product uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel product uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300A has a higher transistor count (153,000 million versus unknown) and a larger die (1017 mm² versus 368 mm²). Its release date is earlier, and its predecessor is FirePro Data Center.

The Arc B770 wins on graphics-specific features. It has 128 ROPs and a 307.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the MI300A has 0 ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The Intel part has 32 RT cores, which the AMD part does not list. The Arc B770 has display outputs, including 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the MI300A has none. The Intel product supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD product has no recorded API support. The Arc B770 has higher base and boost clocks (2100 MHz and 2400 MHz versus 1000 MHz and 2100 MHz). It also has a lower TDP (225 W versus 750 W), a lower suggested PSU (550 W versus 1150 W), and a standard dual-slot form factor with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors. Its release date is later, and its predecessor is Alchemist.

The recorded data supports a split verdict. For compute, memory-bound, or data center workloads, the MI300A presents the stronger specification set. For graphics rendering, ray tracing, or any workload requiring display output and standard API compatibility, the Arc B770 presents the stronger specification set. The database has no benchmark scores or nearest rival data for either product, so these conclusions rest entirely on the recorded specification differences. The equal percentile versus all GPUs of 50 for both products does not reflect any measured performance relationship, as both average benchmark scores are 0. The wins counters for both products are 0, meaning the database has not yet established a performance hierarchy between them. The analysis therefore relies on the specification sheet, which clearly separates the two into different workload domains.