AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc B370 Comparison

AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc B370

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X and Intel Arc B370 represent two extreme ends of the GPU spectrum, one a massive data center accelerator designed for AI and compute workloads, the other a low-power integrated graphics solution for mobile processors. The database contains a single benchmark score for the Intel Arc B370, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X has no recorded benchmark scores, making direct numerical comparison limited. However, the specification differences and available performance data provide a clear picture of their respective positions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes only one benchmark result for the Intel Arc B370: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. This places the Arc B370 at the 5th percentile of all GPUs in the database, indicating it sits near the bottom of the performance distribution. Its nearest rivals in the database are all older or lower-tier cards: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, which is 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, which is 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower than the Arc B370. These deltas are extremely small, all within a range of about two percentage points, indicating that the Arc B370 delivers performance comparable to decade-old discrete graphics cards and mobile chips.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X has no benchmark scores in the database, so there is no direct head-to-head measurement to compare. The headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty, and winsA and winsB are both zero. This means the database cannot provide any direct performance comparison between these two products in any specific test. The MI300X has an avgBenchmarkScore of 0 and a percentileVsAllGpus of 50, which reflects its lack of recorded benchmark data rather than any actual performance level. The Arc B370, by contrast, has a percentile of 5, which is a concrete measurement of its position relative to all other GPUs in the database.

Given the absence of benchmark data for the MI300X, the only numerical comparison possible is the specification-level analysis. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. That is a factor of roughly 13.3 times higher FP32 throughput for the MI300X, though this is a theoretical peak calculation, not a measured benchmark result. In FP16, the MI300X reaches 653.7 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio, while the Arc B370 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The MI300X also has a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s for the Arc B370, and the MI300X has no pixel rate listed (0 MPixel/s) while the Arc B370 has 48.00 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc B370 wins in scenarios where power consumption and physical footprint are critical constraints. Its TDP is 25 W, compared to 750 W for the MI300X, a 30-fold difference in power draw. The Arc B370 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), meaning it is built into a processor package and requires no separate card, no additional power connectors, and no external cooling solution beyond what the host system provides. Its bus interface is listed as IGP, and its display outputs are noted as portable device dependent, meaning it is designed for laptops and other mobile devices where space and power are at a premium. The Arc B370 supports modern graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for mainstream gaming and media tasks on integrated graphics.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X wins in raw compute performance and memory capacity. It has 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Arc B370 uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, compared to 1,280 shading units and 40 TMUs for the Arc B370. The MI300X also has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the Arc B370's transistor count and die size are unknown. The MI300X is designed for data center workloads such as AI training and inference, where massive memory capacity and compute throughput are essential. It has no display outputs, meaning it is purely a compute accelerator, not a graphics card for rendering to a screen.

The MI300X also holds an advantage in FP16 throughput for AI workloads, with 653.7 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS for the Arc B370. This is a 53-fold difference in peak FP16 performance, though again this is a theoretical specification, not a measured result. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16 for host connectivity, while the Arc B370 uses an IGP bus interface, which ties it to the memory and bandwidth of the host processor.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Aqua Vanjaram. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 153,000 million transistors packed into a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The architecture is tailored for compute acceleration, with no ray tracing cores listed, no tensor cores listed, and no ROPs listed. The pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, confirming that this chip does not perform traditional rasterization output. Its memory subsystem uses HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus width and a memory clock of 2525 MHz, which translates to 10.1 Gbps effective and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth.

The Arc B370 uses Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture on a chip codenamed Panther Lake. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel, with unknown transistor count and die size. The architecture includes 10 ray tracing cores, 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. Its base clock is 300 MHz with a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Memory is system shared, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The Arc B370 has a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which are the same API levels found in modern discrete GPUs.

The process node difference is notable: the MI300X uses 5 nm from TSMC, while the Arc B370 uses 3 nm from Intel. The 3 nm node is smaller, but the MI300X compensates with a much larger die and far more transistors. The MI300X has a die size of 1017 mm², which is among the largest in the database, while the Arc B370's die size is unknown, though as an integrated solution it is likely much smaller. The MI300X's memory clock is fixed at 2525 MHz for HBM3, while the Arc B370's memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning it varies with the host system's memory speed.

The MI300X has no display outputs and no power connectors, as it is an OAM module designed for server boards. The Arc B370 has display outputs that are portable device dependent, meaning they are determined by the specific laptop or mobile device it is integrated into. The MI300X has a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the Arc B370 has no suggested PSU because it draws power from the host system.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference between the MI300X and the Arc B370 in the database?

A: The database contains no benchmark scores for the MI300X, so no direct performance comparison is possible. The Arc B370 has a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, placing it at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, but there is no corresponding score for the MI300X.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184, which is 0.2% lower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), 0.5% lower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), and 0.7% lower than the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192). It is 1.4% higher than the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168).

Q: What is the memory capacity of each GPU?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B370 uses system shared memory, meaning its capacity and bandwidth depend on the host system and are listed as system dependent.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W and no suggested PSU, as it is an integrated graphics solution that draws power from the host processor.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Arc B370 has 10 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which includes ray tracing features. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed and no RT cores field, indicating it is not designed for ray tracing workloads.

Q: What is the release date for each GPU?

A: The MI300X was released on December 5, 2023. The Arc B370 was released on January 26, 2026, and its production status is listed as active.

The Verdict

The data shows that these two products serve entirely different purposes. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X is a data center compute accelerator with 192 GB of HBM3 memory, 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and 653.7 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. It has no display outputs, no ROPs, and no ray tracing cores, confirming its role as a pure compute device. Its 750 W TDP and OAM module form factor require a server platform with substantial power delivery and cooling. The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution with 25 W TDP, system shared memory, and support for modern graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. It has 10 ray tracing cores and a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s, making it suitable for mainstream graphics tasks in portable devices.

For AI training, large language model inference, or scientific computing, the MI300X is the clear choice based on its memory capacity and compute throughput. The 192 GB of HBM3 memory and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth are essential for holding large models and datasets in memory, and the 653.7 TFLOPS of FP16 performance provides the throughput needed for training and inference workloads. The Arc B370, with its system shared memory and 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, cannot approach these capabilities.

For everyday computing, media playback, and light gaming on a laptop, the Arc B370 is the appropriate option. Its 25 W TDP means it adds minimal power draw to a mobile system, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 ensures compatibility with modern games and applications. The benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it at the 5th percentile, meaning it performs similarly to older discrete GPUs like the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which is adequate for 1080p gaming at lower settings or less demanding titles.

The database records no benchmark scores for the MI300X, so its real-world performance cannot be directly compared to the Arc B370. However, the specification differences are so large that any measured comparison would be academic. The MI300X has 15.2 times more shading units (19,456 versus 1,280), a memory bus that is 8192 bits wide versus system shared, and a TDP that is 30 times higher. These are not competing products; they are answers to different questions. The MI300X asks how to maximize compute throughput and memory capacity for server workloads, while the Arc B370 asks how to provide acceptable graphics performance within the power and thermal limits of a mobile processor.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products in the database:

• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram for the MI300X, Panther Lake for the Arc B370
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 for the MI300X, Xe3-LPG for the Arc B370
• Generation: Radeon Instinct (MIx) for the MI300X, Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) for the Arc B370
• Process node: 5 nm for the MI300X, 3 nm for the Arc B370
• Foundry: TSMC for the MI300X, Intel for the Arc B370
• Transistors: 153,000 million for the MI300X, unknown for the Arc B370
• Die size: 1017 mm² for the MI300X, unknown for the Arc B370
• Transistor density: 150.4M / mm² for the MI300X, not listed for the Arc B370
• Base clock: 1000 MHz for the MI300X, 300 MHz for the Arc B370
• Boost clock: 2100 MHz for the MI300X, 2400 MHz for the Arc B370
• Memory clock: 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective for the MI300X, system shared for the Arc B370
• Memory size: 192 GB for the MI300X, system shared for the Arc B370
• Memory type: HBM3 for the MI300X, system shared for the Arc B370
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit for the MI300X, system shared for the Arc B370
• Memory bandwidth: 10.3 TB/s for the MI300X, system dependent for the Arc B370
• Shading units: 19,456 for the MI300X, 1,280 for the Arc B370
• TMUs: 1,216 for the MI300X, 40 for the Arc B370
• ROPs: 0 for the MI300X, 20 for the Arc B370
• RT cores: not listed for the MI300X, 10 for the Arc B370
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s for the MI300X, 48.00 GPixel/s for the Arc B370
• Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300X, 96.00 GTexel/s for the Arc B370
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300X, 6.144 TFLOPS for the Arc B370
• FP16: 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) for the MI300X, 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Arc B370
• TDP: 750 W for the MI300X, 25 W for the Arc B370
• Slot width: OAM Module for the MI300X, IGP for the Arc B370
• Power connectors: None for both, but the MI300X has a suggested PSU of 1150 W while the Arc B370 has none
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X, IGP for the Arc B370
• Display outputs: No outputs for the MI300X, Portable Device Dependent for the Arc B370
• DirectX support: not listed for the MI300X, 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the Arc B370
• OpenGL support: not listed for the MI300X, 4.6 for the Arc B370
• Vulkan support: not listed for the MI300X, 1.4 for the Arc B370
• Production status: not listed for the MI300X, Active for the Arc B370
• Release date: December 5, 2023 for the MI300X, January 26, 2026 for the Arc B370
• Predecessor: FirePro Data Center for the MI300X, none for the Arc B370
• Benchmark scores: none for the MI300X, one score of 1184 for the Arc B370
• Percentile: 50 for the MI300X, 5 for the Arc B370
• Average benchmark score: 0 for the MI300X, 1184 for the Arc B370