AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc Pro B70 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data separates these two accelerators by design intent rather than by direct competition. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A and the Intel Arc Pro B70 share a 5 nm TSMC process and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, but their benchmark profiles, memory systems, and physical configurations place them in different segments of the database.

The MI300A holds the advantage in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rating of 81.72 TFLOPS is roughly 3.5 times the Arc Pro B70's 22.94 TFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided: the MI300A delivers 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) versus the Intel part's 45.88 TFLOPS (2:1). Texture rate follows the same pattern, with the MI300A posting 2,553.6 GTexel/s against 716.8 GTexel/s on the Arc Pro B70. These figures indicate the AMD part is built for sustained compute workloads, particularly those that scale with half-precision math.

The Arc Pro B70 counters in areas the MI300A does not address. It has a pixel rate of 358.4 GPixel/s, while the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s. The Intel card includes 32 ray tracing cores; the AMD part lists none. The Arc Pro B70 also has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1), whereas the MI300A has no outputs at all. The Intel accelerator supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A's API support fields are all null in the database.

Clock behavior favors the Intel part. The Arc Pro B70 runs a 2280 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost, while the MI300A sits at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The higher clocks do not compensate for the AMD part's massive shading unit count (19,456 versus 4,096), but they do indicate the Intel design targets lower-latency, higher-frequency workloads.

Memory capacity and bandwidth clearly belong to the MI300A. It carries 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B70 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus for 608.0 GB/s. That is a 17x bandwidth gap and a 6x capacity gap, both favoring AMD. The Intel card's memory clock is 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), while the MI300A's memory runs at 2525 MHz (10.1 Gbps effective); the effective data rate advantage belongs to Intel, but the aggregate bandwidth belongs to AMD.

Physical design also splits the two. The MI300A is an OAM Module with no power connectors and a 750 W TDP, requiring a 1150 W suggested PSU. The Arc Pro B70 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm by 110 mm by 39 mm, using a single 8-pin connector, a 230 W TDP, and a 550 W suggested PSU. The database records no launch MSRP for the MI300A; the Arc Pro B70 lists a launch MSRP of 949 USD.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The Arc Pro B70 uses Xe2-HPG on the BMG-G31 die. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, but the similarities end there.

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The MI300A packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, producing a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The Arc Pro B70's transistor count is unknown in the database, but its die size is 368 mm², roughly 36% of the AMD die's area. The MI300A's die is larger than any consumer GPU in the database, and the transistor density reflects a design prioritizing compute resources over rasterization.

The compute pipelines are organized differently. The MI300A has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, with zero ROPs. The Arc Pro B70 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The AMD part is a pure compute accelerator, outsourcing pixel work entirely. The Intel part retains a full raster pipeline, evidenced by its pixel rate and ROP count.

Ray tracing support separates the two. The Arc Pro B70 includes 32 dedicated RT cores. The MI300A has no RT core field populated. The Intel architecture is designed to handle ray-traced workloads, while the AMD part focuses on dense matrix and vector operations typically associated with HPC and AI training.

Memory architecture reflects the different target markets. The MI300A uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit interface, a configuration that maximizes bandwidth for large data sets. The Arc Pro B70 uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, a conventional layout for a workstation or prosumer card. The AMD part's 10.3 TB/s bandwidth is in a different class from the Intel part's 608.0 GB/s.

Power delivery also differs. The MI300A draws 750 W with no external power connectors, relying on the OAM module's baseboard supply. The Arc Pro B70 draws 230 W through a single 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU ratings are 1150 W for the AMD part and 550 W for the Intel part. Slot width reflects this: the MI300A is an OAM Module, the Arc Pro B70 is dual-slot.

API support is another dividing line. The Arc Pro B70 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A's API fields are null, indicating no consumer-facing graphics API support. The Intel card also has display outputs, while the AMD part has none. These are not equivalent products; they serve different functions in different systems.

Release dates place them in different generations. The MI300A launched on 2023-12-05, with a predecessor of FirePro Data Center. The Arc Pro B70 launched on 2026-03-25, with no predecessor recorded. The MI300A belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation, while the Arc Pro B70 belongs to Battlemage (Pro Series). The Intel part is newer by over two years in the database timeline.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct purchasing decisions. For compute-heavy workloads, particularly FP16 or FP32 matrix operations, the MI300A is the clear choice. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 653.7 TFLOPS FP16 (8:1) are multiples of the Arc Pro B70's 22.94 TFLOPS and 45.88 TFLOPS (2:1). The 192 GB HBM3 pool with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth supports data sets that would overflow the Arc Pro B70's 32 GB GDDR6 with 608.0 GB/s. The MI300A's 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate also dwarfs the Intel part's 716.8 GTexel/s.

For graphics-oriented workloads, the Arc Pro B70 is the only option with relevant features. It has 128 ROPs and a 358.4 GPixel/s pixel rate; the MI300A has zero ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The Intel card includes 32 RT cores, display outputs, and full graphics API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4). The MI300A has no display outputs and no populated API fields. Anyone needing to render frames, run ray tracing, or output video must choose the Intel part.

Power and form factor reinforce the split. The MI300A requires an OAM slot, no power connectors, and a 1150 W suggested PSU. The Arc Pro B70 fits a dual-slot PCIe card with one 8-pin connector and a 550 W suggested PSU. The Intel part is physically installable in a standard workstation chassis; the AMD part is a data center module.

The launch dates matter. The MI300A appeared in December 2023, the Arc Pro B70 in March 2026. The Intel part is newer, but the AMD part remains the compute leader in the database. Neither card is a substitute for the other.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the Intel Arc Pro B70's 22.94 TFLOPS.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The MI300A uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B70 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 608.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the MI300A support ray tracing?

A: No. The database records no RT cores for the MI300A. The Arc Pro B70 includes 32 RT cores.

Q: Can the MI300A output video to a display?

A: No. The MI300A has no display outputs. The Arc Pro B70 has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the power requirement for each card?

A: The MI300A has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc Pro B70 has a 230 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Arc Pro B70 boosts to 2800 MHz, while the MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries between these two cards, but the spec-level data provides clear comparison points.

The largest win for the MI300A is memory bandwidth. At 10.3 TB/s, it exceeds the Arc Pro B70's 608.0 GB/s by a factor of 17. This gap directly impacts workloads that stream large matrices or training data. The 192 GB capacity versus 32 GB is a 6x advantage, allowing the AMD part to hold entire models or data sets in local memory without host transfers.

The FP16 compute gap is the second major win. The MI300A's 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) is 14.3x the Arc Pro B70's 45.88 TFLOPS (2:1). The ratio notation also matters: the MI300A's 8:1 ratio indicates a different FP16 implementation geared toward throughput, while the Arc Pro B70's 2:1 ratio suggests a more balanced design. For FP32, the MI300A's 81.72 TFLOPS is 3.6x the Intel part's 22.94 TFLOPS.

Texture rate favors the MI300A at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 716.8 GTexel/s, a 3.6x margin. Shading units follow the same pattern: 19,456 versus 4,096, a 4.75x difference. TMUs are 1,216 versus 256, a 4.75x gap.

The Arc Pro B70 wins in pixel throughput. Its 358.4 GPixel/s stands against the MI300A's 0 MPixel/s. The Intel part also wins on clock speeds: 2280 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz and 2100 MHz. Memory data rate favors Intel at 19 Gbps effective versus 10.1 Gbps effective, though this does not offset the bus width difference.

Physical dimensions favor the Intel card for installability. The Arc Pro B70 is 267 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 39 mm wide. The MI300A has no recorded dimensions, but its OAM Module form factor and 750 W TDP place it outside standard PC enclosures. The Arc Pro B70 uses one 8-pin power connector; the MI300A uses none, drawing power through the OAM slot.

The API comparison is one-sided. The Arc Pro B70 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A has null entries for all three. This confirms the AMD part has no consumer graphics stack, while the Intel part is a full-featured graphics adapter.

The transistor data shows the MI300A's scale. At 153,000 million transistors on 1017 mm², it is a much larger chip than the Arc Pro B70's 368 mm² die. The Intel transistor count is unknown, but the die area difference alone indicates the AMD part dedicates far more silicon to compute resources.

The release timeline gives the Arc Pro B70 a recency advantage. It launched 2026-03-25, while the MI300A launched 2023-12-05. The Intel part is 2 years and 3 months newer. The MI300A's predecessor is FirePro Data Center; the Arc Pro B70 has no predecessor recorded.

The MI300A's percentile versus all GPUs is 50, and the Arc Pro B70's is also 50. Both have an average benchmark score of 0, and neither has nearest rivals listed in the database. The wins are 0 for both in the head-to-head table. The comparison rests entirely on the specification data recorded for each part.