AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X and Intel Arc A310E occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, one a massive data center accelerator and the other a compact embedded GPU. The database records no shared benchmark results, so their relative performance must be inferred from the recorded architectural and specification fields. The MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm process, while the A310E uses Xe-HPG on a 6 nm process. The MI308X targets compute workloads with 192 GB of HBM3 memory and no display outputs, whereas the A310E is a single-slot card with 4 GB of GDDR6 and four mini-DisplayPort outputs. The data shows a clear split in capability and intended use, with the MI308X delivering orders of magnitude more raw throughput and the A310E providing a low-power, output-capable solution.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X wins every category related to raw compute and memory capacity. Its FP32 performance is recorded at 81.72 TFLOPS, which is roughly 26.6 times the A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. The FP16 figures are even more lopsided, with the MI308X delivering 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) compared to the A310E's 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1), a 106.4 times difference. Memory bandwidth tells a similar story: 10.3 TB/s versus 124.0 GB/s, an 83.1 times gap. The MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, while the A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, a 39.9 times advantage. The MI308X also has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and no ROPs, while the A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

The Intel Arc A310E wins in areas where the MI308X has no presence. The A310E is the only one with display outputs, offering 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0, while the MI308X has no outputs. The A310E has a pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s, whereas the MI308X records 0 MPixel/s. The A310E also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI308X lists no supported APIs. The A310E has 6 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the MI308X's recorded data. The A310E also wins on physical dimensions, measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, fitting a single-slot form factor, while the MI308X is an OAM module with no recorded dimensions.

The MI308X wins on process technology and die size. It uses a 5 nm node with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4M / mm². The A310E uses a 6 nm node with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for a density of 45.9M / mm². The MI308X also has a higher boost clock at 2100 MHz versus the A310E's 2000 MHz. The MI308X supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI308X has a higher TDP at 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the A310E has a 75 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X is for data center compute tasks that demand massive memory capacity and throughput. Its 192 GB HBM3 memory, 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it in a class where the A310E cannot compete. The MI308X has no display outputs and no pixel rate, confirming it is not intended for graphics output. It is a compute accelerator with a 750 W TDP and no power connectors, relying on the OAM module interface for power delivery. The A310E is the opposite: a 75 W, single-slot card with display outputs and a full graphics API stack. Its 4 GB memory and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth are suitable for low-power embedded or edge applications, not heavy compute.

The MI308X's architecture, CDNA 3.0, is compute-focused, with no RT cores or API support listed. The A310E's Xe-HPG architecture includes 6 RT cores and supports modern graphics APIs. The MI308X has 0 ROPs, meaning it cannot output pixels, while the A310E has 16 ROPs and a 32.00 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI308X has a transistor density of 150.4M / mm², more than three times the A310E's 45.9M / mm², reflecting its advanced 5 nm process. The A310E is marked as end-of-life with a successor in Battlemage, while the MI308X has no recorded successor and remains in production status unknown.

For a user selecting between these two, the choice depends entirely on the workload. If the task requires rendering to a display, the A310E is the only option. If the task is compute with massive memory, the MI308X is the only option. The data shows no overlap in capability. The MI308X's 10.3 TB/s bandwidth is 83.1 times the A310E's 124.0 GB/s, and its FP32 output is 26.6 times higher. The A310E's 75 W TDP is one-tenth of the MI308X's 750 W, but that lower power comes with a proportional reduction in performance. The MI308X has a boost clock of 2100 MHz, 100 MHz higher than the A310E's 2000 MHz, but the A310E's base clock is also 2000 MHz, meaning it runs at a constant speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark results between these two products, so all comparisons rely on the recorded specification fields. The largest win for the MI308X is in FP16 throughput, where it delivers 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) versus the A310E's 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1). This represents a 106.4 times difference, indicating the MI308X is designed for mixed-precision compute workloads that dominate AI training and inference. The FP32 difference is smaller but still substantial: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS, a 26.6 times gap. The MI308X also has 19,456 shading units, which is 25.3 times the A310E's 768 shading units.

Memory bandwidth is another major differentiator. The MI308X's 10.3 TB/s bandwidth is 83.1 times the A310E's 124.0 GB/s. This bandwidth comes from an 8192-bit bus, which is 128 times wider than the A310E's 64-bit bus. The MI308X has 192 GB of memory, which is 48 times the A310E's 4 GB. The memory type differs fundamentally: HBM3 versus GDDR6. The MI308X's memory clock is 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective, while the A310E's memory clock is 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective. The A310E has a higher effective data rate per pin, but the MI308X's massive bus width compensates entirely.

Texture rate favors the MI308X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, a 39.9 times difference. The MI308X has 1,216 TMUs while the A310E has 32 TMUs. The A310E wins pixel rate, 32.00 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s, but this is because the MI308X has no ROPs. The A310E has 16 ROPs, while the MI308X has 0. The A310E also has 6 RT cores, which the MI308X lacks entirely. The A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI308X lists no API support.

The MI308X has a lower base clock at 1000 MHz, but a higher boost clock at 2100 MHz. The A310E has a fixed clock of 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The MI308X's boost clock is 100 MHz higher than the A310E's, but its base clock is half the A310E's. The MI308X's transistor count is 153,000 million, which is 21.25 times the A310E's 7,200 million. The die size is 1017 mm² versus 157 mm², a 6.5 times difference. The MI308X's transistor density is 150.4M / mm², which is 3.3 times the A310E's 45.9M / mm².

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory, while the Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, a 48 times difference.

Q: Can the MI308X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI308X has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The A310E has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and a 32.00 GPixel/s pixel rate.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI308X has a 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The A310E has a 75 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI308X uses an OAM module slot width with no power connectors, while the A310E is single-slot with no power connectors.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the Intel Arc A310E, which has 6 RT cores. The MI308X has no RT cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth gap?

A: The MI308X has 10.3 TB/s bandwidth from an 8192-bit HBM3 bus, while the A310E has 124.0 GB/s from a 64-bit GDDR6 bus. This is an 83.1 times difference.

Q: Which card is smaller?

A: The Intel Arc A310E is 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, fitting a single-slot form factor. The MI308X is an OAM module with no recorded dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, which is designed specifically for data center compute. It has no ROPs, no RT cores, and no display outputs, confirming its compute-only focus. The chip is named Aqua Vanjaram and is manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4M / mm². The memory subsystem uses HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus and 192 GB capacity. The FP16 performance is 653.7 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio, indicating a heavy bias toward mixed-precision workloads. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, but zero ROPs, meaning it cannot rasterize or output pixels.

The Intel Arc A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture, which is a graphics-focused design. It is built on a 6 nm process by TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for a transistor density of 45.9M / mm². The chip is DG2-128, part of the Alchemist generation. It has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores, making it a full graphics solution. The A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its FP16 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which is typical for consumer graphics. The A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The MI308X has no API support listed, while the A310E has a full graphics API stack. The MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI308X has a boost clock of 2100 MHz and a base clock of 1000 MHz, while the A310E has a constant 2000 MHz clock. The MI308X has a memory clock of 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective, while the A310E has a memory clock of 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective. The MI308X has no power connectors and uses an OAM module slot, while the A310E is single-slot with no power connectors either.

Specification Differences

The process node differs: the MI308X uses 5 nm, while the A310E uses 6 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor count is 153,000 million versus 7,200 million, a 21.25 times difference. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 157 mm², a 6.5 times difference. Transistor density is 150.4M / mm² versus 45.9M / mm², a 3.3 times difference. The MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the A310E has both base and boost at 2000 MHz. Memory size is 192 GB versus 4 GB. Memory type is HBM3 versus GDDR6. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth is 10.3 TB/s versus 124.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 19,456 versus 768. TMUs are 1,216 versus 32. ROPs are 0 versus 16. RT cores are 0 versus 6. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS. FP16 is 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) versus 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 750 W versus 75 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus Single-slot. Power connectors are none for both. Suggested PSU is 1150 W versus 250 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are no outputs versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.

The MI308X has no recorded dimensions, while the A310E measures 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm. The MI308X has no listed DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, while the A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X was released on 2023-12-05, while the A310E was released on 2024-03-31. The MI308X's predecessor is FirePro Data Center, while the A310E's predecessor is Xe Graphics. The A310E has a successor in Battlemage, while the MI308X has no recorded successor. The A310E is marked as end-of-life, while the MI308X has no production status recorded.