AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X and the Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual in entirely different segments of the compute market. The MI300X is a data center accelerator built for massive parallel workloads, while the Arc Pro B60 Dual is a professional graphics card with display outputs. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 6.6 times the 12.29 TFLOPS of the Arc Pro B60 Dual. Its memory subsystem is equally dominant: 192 GB of HBM3 with 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth versus 24 GB of GDDR6 at 456.0 GB/s. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1216 TMUs, and a 8192-bit memory bus, compared to 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and a 192-bit bus on the Intel part.

The Intel card does hold advantages in specific areas. It has 80 ROPs and a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, while the MI300X reports 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The Arc Pro B60 Dual also includes 20 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the MI300X specification. Its 400 W TDP is lower than the 750 W of the AMD card, and its suggested PSU of 800 W versus 1150 W makes it easier to integrate into conventional workstations. The Intel card is production active, while the AMD part has no production status listed.

Both cards sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, though neither has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals. The choice depends entirely on workload type. The MI300X is the only option for memory-bound AI training or inference with very large models. The Arc Pro B60 Dual is the only option for graphics output, ray tracing, or standard display-centric professional work.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more FP32 compute power?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 12.29 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual. That is approximately 6.6 times higher.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 across a 8192-bit bus, achieving 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B60 Dual uses 24 GB of GDDR6 across a 192-bit bus, achieving 456.0 GB/s. The AMD card has 8 times the memory capacity and roughly 22.6 times the bandwidth.

Q: Does either card support ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual includes 20 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X lists no ray tracing cores at all. This makes the Intel card the only one of the two with explicit hardware support for ray-traced workloads.

Q: What display outputs are available?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X has no display outputs, confirming its role as a compute-only accelerator.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc Pro B60 Dual has a TDP of 400 W and a suggested PSU of 800 W. The Intel card also uses a single 16-pin power connector, while the MI300X lists no power connectors.

Q: Which card has a larger physical footprint?

A: The MI300X uses an OAM Module slot width, with no dimensions listed. The Arc Pro B60 Dual is a Dual-slot card measuring 300 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Intel card is a conventional PCIe form factor, while the AMD card requires a different mounting standard.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, which is designed for data center compute. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual uses the Xe2-HPG architecture on the BMG-G21 chip, which targets professional graphics workloads. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The die sizes tell a dramatic story. The MI300X measures 1017 mm² and packs 153,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The Arc Pro B60 Dual measures 272 mm² with 19,600 million transistors, resulting in a density of 72.1 million per mm². The AMD chip is nearly four times larger in die area and contains about 7.8 times more transistors.

The fixed-function hardware differs sharply. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1216 TMUs, but zero ROPs, zero ray tracing cores, and no tensor core count listed. The Arc Pro B60 Dual has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 20 ray tracing cores. The Intel card is a complete graphics processor with rasterization and ray tracing hardware, while the AMD card is a pure compute engine that offloads all graphics duties.

Memory architecture reinforces the divide. The MI300X uses HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus, a configuration optimized for sustained bandwidth in AI training loops. The Arc Pro B60 Dual uses GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus, a conventional setup for graphics workstations. The MI300X achieves a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s for the Intel card, and its FP16 throughput of 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1 ratio) dwarfs the 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) of the Arc Pro B60.

Specification Differences

The clock behavior reveals opposite design priorities. The MI300X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc Pro B60 Dual runs at 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. The Intel card starts higher and boosts higher, yet delivers far less total compute because of its smaller execution footprint.

Memory clock rates differ as well. The MI300X memory runs at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective data rate. The Arc Pro B60 Dual memory runs at 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective. The Intel GDDR6 uses faster signaling per pin, but the AMD HBM3 wins overwhelmingly on total bandwidth due to the massive 8192-bit bus.

The API support is exclusive to the Intel card. The Arc Pro B60 Dual supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists no API support whatsoever, reflecting its lack of any graphics pipeline. The bus interface also differs: the MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc Pro B60 Dual uses PCIe 5.0 x8, half the lane count.

Physical specifications diverge completely. The MI300X is an OAM Module with no power connectors and no display outputs. The Arc Pro B60 Dual is a Dual-slot card with a 1x 16-pin power connector and 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. Dimensions are only recorded for the Intel card: 300 mm by 110 mm by 40 mm. The MI300X has no length, height, or width listed.

The release dates are far apart. The MI300X launched on 2023-12-05, while the Arc Pro B60 Dual launched on 2025-09-04, roughly 21 months later. The MI300X lists "FirePro Data Center" as its predecessor, while the Intel card has no predecessor recorded. The Arc Pro B60 Dual has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, stated once here as the only pricing data available. The MI300X has no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No benchmark scores are recorded for either card, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. The nearest rivals lists are also empty for both items. This means the database contains no direct performance measurements comparing these two accelerators. The analysis must rely on the raw specification data.

The largest specification win for the MI300X is FP32 throughput. At 81.72 TFLOPS, it exceeds the Arc Pro B60 Dual's 12.29 TFLOPS by a factor of 6.6. This gap is consistent with the shading unit count: 19,456 versus 2560, a ratio of 7.6 to 1. The texture rate follows the same pattern, with 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, a ratio of 6.65 to 1.

Memory bandwidth is the second decisive win. The MI300X delivers 10.3 TB/s, which is 22.6 times the 456.0 GB/s of the Arc Pro B60 Dual. Memory capacity is 192 GB versus 24 GB, an 8 to 1 advantage. These figures indicate that the MI300X can hold and stream far larger datasets without hitting memory bottlenecks.

The Arc Pro B60 Dual wins on pixel throughput. Its 192.0 GPixel/s dwarfs the 0 MPixel/s of the MI300X. The Intel card has 80 ROPs to the AMD card's zero. This is not a matter of degree but of existence: the MI300X has no rasterization hardware at all. The Arc Pro B60 Dual also wins on ray tracing, with 20 dedicated cores versus none.

Power efficiency favors the Intel card. The Arc Pro B60 Dual uses 400 W to produce 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32, yielding roughly 30.7 GFLOPS per watt. The MI300X uses 750 W to produce 81.72 TFLOPS, yielding roughly 109.0 GFLOPS per watt. By this calculation, the AMD card is more efficient per watt, but the Intel card requires less total power and a smaller suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins in every category that measures raw compute throughput. FP32, FP16, texture rate, memory bandwidth, memory capacity, and shading unit count all favor the AMD card by wide margins. Its 153,000 million transistors and 1017 mm² die size indicate a part built to solve the largest possible parallel problems. The 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU confirm that this is a server-grade component for installations with dedicated power infrastructure.

The Arc Pro B60 Dual wins in every category that measures graphics output. Its 80 ROPs, 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, 20 ray tracing cores, and 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it a functional graphics card. The DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support allows it to run standard graphics applications. Its 400 W TDP, 800 W suggested PSU, and Dual-slot form factor allow it to fit into conventional workstation chassis. The recorded dimensions of 300 mm by 110 mm by 40 mm confirm a standard professional card footprint.

The use cases split cleanly. The MI300X suits workloads where memory capacity and bandwidth are the limiting factors: large language model inference, training runs with massive batch sizes, or scientific simulations that need to keep entire datasets resident in GPU memory. The Arc Pro B60 Dual suits workloads where visual output matters: CAD viewport rendering, video post-production, or any task requiring multiple display connections at mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

The recorded data shows two valid products with no overlap. Neither card can substitute for the other in its primary role. The MI300X is a compute accelerator without display output, and the Arc Pro B60 Dual is a graphics processor with a fraction of the compute throughput. The choice is determined entirely by whether the workload produces pixels or produces numbers.