AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the architectural generations of the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X and Intel Arc A380E?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, part of the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation. The Intel Arc A380E uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X features 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit counts?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X has 19,456 shading units, while the Intel Arc A380E has 1,024 shading units. This represents a 19:1 ratio in favor of the AMD part.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has a boost clock of 2000 MHz, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X has a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The AMD card boosts 100 MHz higher.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: What display outputs does each card provide?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X has no display outputs, as it is an OAM Module. The Intel Arc A380E provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X and Intel Arc A380E represent fundamentally different design philosophies within their respective architectures. The MI300X is built on CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-optimized architecture, while the A380E uses Xe-HPG, Intel's gaming and graphics architecture. These architectural choices drive nearly every specification difference observed in the data.

The manufacturing processes differ significantly. The MI300X is fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the A380E uses TSMC's 6 nm process. This process advantage contributes to the MI300X's transistor density of 150.4M per mm² versus the A380E's 45.9M per mm². The die sizes reflect this disparity: the MI300X has a massive 1017 mm² die containing 153,000 million transistors, while the A380E has a 157 mm² die with 7,200 million transistors. The MI300X packs more than 21 times the transistor count onto a die that is roughly 6.5 times larger.

The memory architectures are entirely different categories. The MI300X uses HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, achieving 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The A380E uses GDDR6 across a 96-bit bus, achieving 186.0 GB/s. This represents a 55x difference in memory bandwidth, which directly impacts compute workloads that are memory-bound. The MI300X's 192 GB capacity dwarfs the A380E's 6 GB, making the former suitable for large model inference and the latter for graphics workloads with modest memory requirements.

The compute pipelines diverge in scale. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs (0 MPixel/s pixel rate). The A380E has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, achieving a 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI300X's texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus the A380E's 128.0 GTexel/s. The A380E includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the MI300X's specification sheet. The MI300X's FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS, while its FP16 throughput reaches 653.7 TFLOPS at an 8:1 ratio. The A380E achieves 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio.

Physical and interface differences are substantial. The MI300X is an OAM Module with no power connectors and no display outputs, relying on the host system for power delivery. The A380E is a single-slot card with dimensions of 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width, featuring 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the A380E uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300X has no listed API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, consistent with its compute-only design. The A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X and Intel Arc A380E. Both cards share the same 50th percentile rank among all GPUs, and both have an average benchmark score of zero in the recorded measurements. Neither card has nearest rivals listed in the database, and the win counts are zero for each side.

The absence of measured benchmarks does not prevent specification-level comparison. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 19.95 times the A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS. For FP16 workloads, the MI300X's 653.7 TFLOPS is 79.8 times the A380E's 8.192 TFLOPS. The MI300X's texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is 19.95 times the A380E's 128.0 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth shows the largest relative gap: 10.3 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, a 55.4x difference.

The A380E counters in areas relevant to graphics output and rasterization. Its 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate compares to the MI300X's 0 MPixel/s, since the MI300X has no ROPs. The A380E includes 8 ray tracing cores, which the MI300X lacks entirely. The A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300X lists no graphics API support.

Clock behavior differs meaningfully. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, allowing for a 1100 MHz dynamic range. The A380E has a fixed 2000 MHz clock for both base and boost, showing no boost headroom. The MI300X's memory runs at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective data rate, while the A380E's memory runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective. The A380E's GDDR6 achieves higher per-pin data rates, but the MI300X's enormous bus width overwhelms this advantage.

Power efficiency comparisons are stark. The MI300X consumes 750 W TDP to deliver 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, yielding 0.109 TFLOPS per watt. The A380E consumes 75 W TDP to deliver 4.096 TFLOPS FP32, yielding 0.055 TFLOPS per watt. The MI300X is approximately 2x more efficient per watt for FP32 compute, despite its much higher absolute power draw.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process node versus the A380E's 6 nm node. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 7,200 million. Die sizes are 1017 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor densities are 150.4M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Clock specifications show the MI300X with base 1000 MHz and boost 2100 MHz, while the A380E has base 2000 MHz and boost 2000 MHz. Memory clocks are 2525 MHz (10.1 Gbps effective) for the MI300X versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for the A380E.

Memory configurations differ completely: 192 GB HBM3 on 8192-bit bus versus 6 GB GDDR6 on 96-bit bus. Bandwidth is 10.3 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s.

Compute resources: 19,456 shading units versus 1,024; 1,216 TMUs versus 64; 0 ROPs versus 32; 8 ray tracing cores present only on the A380E. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16 is 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) versus 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specs: TDP is 750 W versus 75 W. Suggested PSU is 1150 W versus 250 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus Single-slot. Power connectors are None for both. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are No outputs versus 4x DisplayPort 2.0.

API support: the MI300X lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan versions. The A380E lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Dimensions exist only for the A380E: 254 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width.

Production status differs: the MI300X has no listed production status, while the A380E is marked End-of-life. Release dates are 2023-12-05 for the MI300X and 2024-03-31 for the A380E.

Predecessors and successors: the MI300X's predecessor is FirePro Data Center with no successor listed. The A380E's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage.

The Verdict

The data indicates two devices built for entirely different purposes with no direct benchmark overlap. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X is a compute-optimized accelerator with 19,456 shading units, 192 GB of HBM3, 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no ROPs, confirming its role as a data center compute module rather than a graphics card.

The Intel Arc A380E is a graphics card with 1,024 shading units, 6 GB of GDDR6, 186.0 GB/s bandwidth, 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, 8 ray tracing cores, and full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 75 W TDP and single-slot form factor with 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs make it suitable for embedded or compact graphics deployments.

The MI300X's compute advantages are overwhelming in raw throughput: 19.95x FP32, 79.8x FP16, 55.4x memory bandwidth, and 19.95x texture rate. For any workload that can use these resources, such as large-scale matrix operations or memory-intensive inference, the MI300X is the clear choice. The A380E's advantages are in graphics-specific features: pixel output, ray tracing, display connectivity, and graphics API compatibility.

The MI300X's 750 W TDP and OAM Module form factor require a data center platform with adequate power delivery. The A380E's 75 W TDP and standard single-slot design with PCIe 4.0 x8 interface allow deployment in conventional systems. The A380E's End-of-life production status indicates its lifecycle is concluding, while the MI300X has no such status listed.

Users requiring compute acceleration for large models should select the MI300X. Users needing a graphics output device with display connectivity and ray tracing should select the A380E. The two products do not compete in the same market segment, and the recorded data shows no benchmark overlap to suggest otherwise.