AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X vs Intel Arc Pro B65 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X and the Intel Arc Pro B65. Both entries return an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all recorded GPUs. There are no head-to-head benchmark entries, no win counts assigned to either card, and no nearest rival data to contextualize their performance. This means any direct numerical comparison of compute throughput, rendering speed, or real-world application performance cannot be drawn from the recorded measurements. What remains is a comparison of their theoretical specifications, which are substantial and reveal two entirely different design philosophies.

The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Arc Pro B65 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS. That is a 6.65x difference in single-precision floating-point throughput. In FP16, the gap widens further: the MI300X reaches 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1 ratio), while the Arc Pro B65 reaches 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The MI300X outperforms the Arc Pro B65 by a factor of 26.6 in half-precision compute, assuming the respective ratios are applied as stated. Texture rate also favors the AMD part heavily: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, a 6.65x advantage. Pixel rate tells a different story, however. The MI300X lists a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, which indicates it has no raster output units (ROPs). The Arc Pro B65 has 80 ROPs and a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s. In any rasterization workload that depends on pixel fill, the Intel card has an absolute, categorical advantage because the AMD card cannot output pixels at all.

Memory bandwidth follows the same pattern as compute. The MI300X has 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth across an 8192-bit HBM3 interface. The Arc Pro B65 has 608.0 GB/s across a 256-bit GDDR6 interface. The MI300X offers 16.9x the bandwidth, which is consistent with its role as a data center accelerator for large model inference and training. The Arc Pro B65, with 32 GB of GDDR6, is far smaller but still substantial for a workstation card. The MI300X holds 192 GB of HBM3, six times the capacity of the Intel card.

Where Each One Wins

From the recorded data, the MI300X wins in every compute-centric category: FP32, FP16, texture rate, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and transistor count. It is built for throughput. The Arc Pro B65 wins in rasterization-specific outputs: it has a non-zero pixel rate, 80 ROPs, 20 ray tracing cores, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The MI300X has no display outputs at all. That alone defines the use case split. The MI300X is an accelerator that lives in a server chassis, consuming 750 W and requiring a suggested PSU of 1150 W, with no power connectors listed because it uses an OAM module slot. The Arc Pro B65 is a dual-slot card that draws 200 W, uses a single 8-pin power connector, and requires a suggested PSU of 550 W. It is designed to be installed in a workstation and connected to monitors.

The data indicates the MI300X is not a rendering device. Its 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate mean it cannot drive a display or perform traditional rasterization. Any workload that involves drawing triangles, filling pixels, or outputting frames falls entirely to the Intel card. Conversely, the Arc Pro B65's compute throughput, while respectable for a workstation GPU, is an order of magnitude below the MI300X in every measured compute metric. The FP32 delta between them (81.72 vs 12.29 TFLOPS) is so large that the MI300X is effectively in a different product category. The Arc Pro B65's FP16 performance (24.58 TFLOPS) is less than one-third of the MI300X's FP32 performance, which further emphasizes the gulf in raw arithmetic capability.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, specifically the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. It contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Arc Pro B65 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, specifically the BMG-G21 chip, also on TSMC's 5 nm process, but with 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, yielding a density of 72.1 million per square millimeter. The MI300X has 7.8x the transistor count and a 3.7x larger die area, but its density is 2.1x higher than the Intel chip. This suggests the AMD design packs more logic per area, consistent with a compute-optimized architecture that omits display and rasterization hardware.

The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units. It has no ROPs, no ray tracing cores, and no listed tensor cores. The Arc Pro B65 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 20 ray tracing cores. The shading unit ratio (19,456 to 2,560) is 7.6x, which aligns with the FP32 throughput ratio. The TMU ratio is also 7.6x. The MI300X's memory type is HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus; the Intel card uses GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus. Clock speeds differ notably: the MI300X runs at a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz, while the Arc Pro B65 runs at a flat 2400 MHz for both base and boost. The Intel card has a higher clock, but the AMD card compensates with far more execution units and a wider memory bus.

The MI300X lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database. The Arc Pro B65 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This is a defining architectural difference: the CDNA 3.0 design targets compute workloads, not graphics APIs. The Xe2-HPG Battlemage architecture explicitly supports modern graphics APIs, including ray tracing hardware. The MI300X's memory clock is listed as 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective, while the Intel card's memory clock is 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective. The effective data rate is higher on the Intel card, but the bus width difference (8192 vs 256 bits) makes the total bandwidth comparison lopsided in favor of the AMD part.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear separation of roles. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X is a data center compute accelerator. Its 750 W TDP, OAM module form factor, lack of display outputs, and 192 GB of HBM3 memory place it firmly in server racks for large-scale parallel compute. The Intel Arc Pro B65 is a workstation graphics card. Its 200 W TDP, dual-slot design, 80 ROPs, 20 ray tracing cores, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it suitable for rendering, visualization, and professional graphics tasks. The MI300X cannot output video, and the Arc Pro B65 cannot match the MI300X's compute density.

For anyone selecting a GPU for machine learning training, scientific simulation, or large matrix operations, the MI300X's FP32 (81.72 TFLOPS) and FP16 (653.7 TFLOPS) figures are the decisive factors. The 10.3 TB/s memory bandwidth and 192 GB capacity are designed to hold massive datasets and model weights. For anyone selecting a GPU for CAD, video editing, 3D rendering, or any display-connected workload, the Arc Pro B65's pixel rate, ROP count, and API support are the relevant specifications. The MI300X has no pixel rate, no ROPs, and no API entries, which makes it unusable for those tasks. The data does not show overlap. It shows two products engineered for different markets, with no benchmark scores to blur the distinction.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS.

Q: Can the AMD MI300X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI300X lists "No outputs" for display connections and has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s with 0 ROPs.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B65 has 32 GB of GDDR6 with 608.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B65 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The Arc Pro B65 has 20 ray tracing cores, while the MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, with no power connectors listed (OAM module). The Arc Pro B65 has a 200 W TDP, a single 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card supports modern graphics APIs?

A: Only the Intel Arc Pro B65 lists API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X has no API entries in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X | Intel Arc Pro B65 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe2-HPG |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | BMG-G21 |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 5 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2525 MHz, 10.1 Gbps effective | 2375 MHz, 19 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB HBM3 | 32 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 10.3 TB/s | 608.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 160 |

| ROPs | 0 | 80 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX Support | None | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | None | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | None | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2026-03-31 |