AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. Neither device has an average benchmark score listed, and no head-to-head benchmark results appear in the database. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile among all recorded GPUs, though this percentile ranking reflects their position in the overall database distribution rather than a direct comparison between the two.

The absence of benchmark scores means the performance relationship must be derived from their hardware specifications. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. This represents a difference of more than two orders of magnitude in raw floating-point throughput. In FP16 workloads, the MI300X reaches 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1 ratio), while the Intel part manages 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The AMD accelerator processes FP16 at a rate roughly 850 times higher than the Intel integrated graphics solution.

Texture throughput shows a similar disparity. The MI300X achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s, compared to 12.00 GTexel/s for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. Pixel rate figures differ as well: the MI300X records 0 MPixel/s due to its compute-focused design, while the Intel part reaches 4.000 GPixel/s. Memory bandwidth tells the clearest story, with the MI300X offering 10.3 TB/s against the Intel part's system-dependent shared memory configuration.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture built on TSMC's 5 nm process. Its physical package, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, contains 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown in the database.

The MI300X belongs to the Radeon Instinct generation, specifically the MIx family, and its predecessor is recorded as the FirePro Data Center line. The Intel part belongs to the HD Graphics-T generation under the Twin Lake chip design. The AMD accelerator is a discrete OAM Module with no display outputs, while the Intel part is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) whose display outputs depend on the portable device it is installed in.

Compute resources differ enormously. The MI300X contains 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, with zero ROPs recorded. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile contains 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The AMD part's 8,192-bit memory bus connects to 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth figure.

Clock speeds reflect their different roles. The MI300X operates at a 1000 MHz base clock with a 2100 MHz boost, and its memory runs at 2525 MHz (10.1 Gbps effective). The Intel part's base clock is 300 MHz with a 1000 MHz boost. Power consumption differs dramatically: the MI300X has a 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the Intel part has a 6 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

The AMD accelerator connects via PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no power connectors listed, consistent with an OAM module design. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface. API support also diverges: the MI300X lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan versions, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X wins decisively in every compute-oriented metric recorded. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS makes it suitable for workloads demanding massive floating-point math, such as large-scale data center compute. The 192 GB HBM3 pool with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth supports datasets far larger than any integrated solution could address. The 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs provide the execution resources for sustained high-throughput processing.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in efficiency and integration. Its 6 W TDP against the MI300X's 750 W TDP means it can operate within the thermal envelope of a portable device with no external power infrastructure. The Ring Bus interface and system shared memory eliminate the need for dedicated VRAM, reducing system complexity. Its 4.000 GPixel/s pixel rate, while modest in absolute terms, exceeds the MI300X's recorded 0 MPixel/s, giving the Intel part an advantage in tasks that require rasterization output. API support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 also gives the Intel part broader compatibility with consumer graphics software.

The Intel part is listed as Active in production status, while the MI300X has no production status recorded. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile also has a later release date of 2024-12-31T17:00:00.000Z compared to the MI300X's 2023-12-05T17:00:00.000Z.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. The AMD part is over 200 times faster in FP32 throughput.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192-bit bus with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a 6 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU supports more shading units?

A: The MI300X contains 19,456 shading units, compared to the Intel part's 192 shading units.

Q: What API support does each GPU offer?

A: The MI300X lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan versions. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are their production statuses?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is listed as Active. The MI300X has no production status recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X and Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile serve completely different market segments. The MI300X is a data center accelerator built for massive compute workloads, evidenced by its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 192 GB HBM3 memory with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, and 19,456 shading units. Its 750 W TDP and OAM Module form factor place it in rack-mounted server environments with dedicated power delivery.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is an integrated graphics solution for portable devices. Its 6 W TDP, Ring Bus interface, and system shared memory allow it to function within a laptop or similar device without discrete graphics hardware. The 192 shading units and 4 ROPs provide basic rendering capability, while API support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 enables broad software compatibility.

Users requiring data center compute acceleration should select the MI300X based on its overwhelming compute and memory advantages. Users needing basic graphics output in a power-constrained portable device should select the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, which offers a functional pixel pipeline and modern API support within a 6 W envelope.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram (AMD) versus Twin Lake (Intel)
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 versus Xe-LP
• Generation: Radeon Instinct (MIx) versus HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake)
• Process Node: 5 nm versus 10 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus unknown
• Die Size: 1017 mm² versus unknown
• Transistor Density: 150.4M per mm² versus null
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2100 MHz versus 1000 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2525 MHz (10.1 Gbps effective) versus System Shared
• Memory Size: 192 GB HBM3 versus System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit versus System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 10.3 TB/s versus System Dependent
• Shading Units: 19,456 versus 192
• TMUs: 1,216 versus 12
• ROPs: 0 versus 4
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS
• FP16: 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) versus 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 750 W versus 6 W
• Slot Width: OAM Module versus IGP
• Power Connectors: None versus null
• Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: null versus 12 (12_1)
• OpenGL: null versus 4.6
• Vulkan: null versus 1.4
• Production Status: null versus Active
• Release Date: 2023-12-05T17:00:00.000Z versus 2024-12-31T17:00:00.000Z