AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X and the Intel Arc A380E shows two accelerators designed for entirely different operating environments. The Radeon Instinct MI308X is a data center compute module with a 750 W TDP, 192 GB of HBM3 memory, and no display outputs, while the Intel Arc A380E is a 75 W single-slot graphics card with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The recorded data confirms that the MI308X delivers substantially higher raw compute throughput, with FP32 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the A380E, a 20x difference. The MI308X also provides a memory bandwidth of 10.3 TB/s compared to 186.0 GB/s for the A380E, a difference of roughly 55x. The A380E counters with a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, while the MI308X records 0 MPixel/s because it lacks raster output units. The production status field lists the A380E as end-of-life, while the MI308X has no recorded production status. The A380E has a successor listed as Battlemage, while the MI308X has no successor recorded. The release dates show the MI308X launched in December 2023, and the A380E arrived in March 2024. Neither part has benchmark scores or rivals recorded in the database, so the verdict rests on architectural and specification analysis. The MI308X serves compute workloads that require massive memory capacity and bandwidth, while the A380E serves display-oriented tasks in a low-power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X has 19,456 shading units. The Intel Arc A380E has 1,024 shading units. The MI308X has 19x more shading units than the A380E.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI308X offers 32x more memory capacity and roughly 55x more bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support display outputs?

A: No. The MI308X has no display outputs and is designed as a compute module. The A380E has 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, making it suitable for display tasks.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The A380E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The A380E uses 10x less power than the MI308X.

Q: Which card has ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the Intel Arc A380E has ray tracing cores, with 8 RT cores recorded. The MI308X has a null value for RT cores in the database, indicating no ray tracing hardware is present.

Q: What are the manufacturing process nodes?

A: The MI308X uses a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The A380E uses a 6 nm process at TSMC with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The MI308X has 21x more transistors and a 6.5x larger die.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture and uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The Intel Arc A380E uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip. These architectures target different workloads, and the recorded specifications reflect that divide. The MI308X belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation, while the A380E belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The MI308X predecessor is listed as FirePro Data Center, and the A380E predecessor is Xe Graphics. The A380E successor is Battlemage, while the MI308X has no successor recorded.

The process nodes differ by one generation. The MI308X uses a 5 nm process, and the A380E uses a 6 nm process, both at TSMC. The transistor counts show a massive gap: 153,000 million for the MI308X versus 7,200 million for the A380E. The die sizes are 1017 mm² for the MI308X and 157 mm² for the A380E. The transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI308X and 45.9M per mm² for the A380E, meaning the MI308X packs more than 3x the transistor density despite the larger die.

The MI308X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The A380E has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI308X records no RT cores, while the A380E has 8 RT cores. Neither card has tensor cores recorded in the database. The MI308X texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s, and the A380E texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s. The MI308X pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, while the A380E pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s.

The API support differs significantly. The A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X has null values for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which indicates these graphics APIs are not relevant for a compute-focused accelerator with no display outputs.

Memory architecture also differs. The MI308X uses HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus width and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The A380E uses GDDR6 memory with a 96-bit bus width and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clocks reflect the different memory types: the MI308X runs at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective, and the A380E runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective.

Specification Differences

The clock behavior separates the two cards. The MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The A380E has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The A380E runs at a higher base clock by 1000 MHz, but the MI308X boost clock exceeds the A380E boost clock by 100 MHz.

The memory capacity difference is 186 GB. The MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3, and the A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6. The bus width differs by 8096 bits, with the MI308X at 8192 bits and the A380E at 96 bits. The bandwidth difference is 10.114 TB/s in favor of the MI308X.

The compute throughput shows a wide gap. The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 653.7 TFLOPS FP16 (8:1 ratio). The A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The FP32 difference is 77.624 TFLOPS, and the FP16 difference is 645.508 TFLOPS.

The power specifications set these cards far apart. The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The A380E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Neither card uses power connectors, with both listed as "None". The slot width differs: the MI308X uses an OAM Module form factor, and the A380E uses a single-slot design.

The bus interfaces differ. The MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, and the A380E uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The A380E has physical dimensions of 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width. The MI308X has no dimensions recorded.

The display outputs show a fundamental difference. The MI308X has no outputs, while the A380E has 4x DisplayPort 2.0. The production status for the A380E is end-of-life, and the MI308X has no production status recorded. The release dates show the MI308X launched on December 5, 2023, and the A380E launched on March 31, 2024.

The FP16 ratio also differs. The MI308X uses an 8:1 ratio, indicating its FP16 throughput is eight times its FP32 throughput. The A380E uses a 2:1 ratio, indicating its FP16 throughput is twice its FP32 throughput. This reflects the different design priorities: the MI308X emphasizes mixed-precision compute, while the A380E maintains a conventional graphics-oriented ratio.

The ROP count is the most direct indicator of the design split. The MI308X has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming it cannot perform traditional rasterization. The A380E has 32 ROPs and a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, confirming it can handle display output and rasterization tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No benchmark scores are recorded in the database for either card. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and both cards have an average benchmark score of 0. The wins counter shows 0 for both cards. The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both cards, which reflects the absence of benchmark data rather than actual performance parity. The nearest rivals lists are also empty for both cards.

The absence of recorded benchmarks means the comparison must rely on specification-derived performance indicators. The texture rate provides one such indicator. The MI308X delivers 2,553.6 GTexel/s, which is approximately 20x the A380E texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s. This ratio matches the FP32 ratio almost exactly, which indicates the shading unit count difference of 19x is the primary driver of both metrics.

The pixel rate shows the clearest divergence. The A380E delivers 64.00 GPixel/s, and the MI308X delivers 0 MPixel/s. This is not a case of one card being faster; the MI308X simply lacks the hardware to perform pixel output. The ROP count of 0 for the MI308X confirms this design choice.

The memory bandwidth comparison favors the MI308X by a wide margin. The MI308X provides 10.3 TB/s, and the A380E provides 186.0 GB/s. This is a ratio of approximately 55:1. The memory capacity ratio is 32:1, with 192 GB versus 6 GB. The bus width ratio is approximately 85:1, with 8192 bits versus 96 bits.

The FP16 comparison shows a different ratio than FP32. The MI308X delivers 653.7 TFLOPS FP16, and the A380E delivers 8.192 TFLOPS FP16. This is a ratio of approximately 80:1. The FP32 ratio is approximately 20:1. The larger FP16 gap reflects the 8:1 FP16 ratio on the MI308X versus the 2:1 ratio on the A380E.

The clock comparison shows the A380E holds an advantage in base clock. The A380E base clock is 2000 MHz, which is double the MI308X base clock of 1000 MHz. The boost clocks are closer: 2100 MHz for the MI308X versus 2000 MHz for the A380E. The higher base clock on the A380E does not compensate for the 19x shading unit advantage of the MI308X.

The transistor density comparison shows the MI308X achieves 150.4M transistors per mm², and the A380E achieves 45.9M transistors per mm². This 3.3x density advantage comes from the smaller 5 nm process node and the larger die. The MI308X die is 1017 mm², and the A380E die is 157 mm², a 6.5x difference.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X wins in every compute-oriented metric recorded in the database. The FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is 20x the A380E FP32 throughput of 4.096 TFLOPS. The FP16 throughput of 653.7 TFLOPS is 80x the A380E FP16 throughput of 8.192 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is 20x the A380E texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s. The memory bandwidth of 10.3 TB/s is 55x the A380E bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s. The memory capacity of 192 GB is 32x the A380E capacity of 6 GB. The MI308X also has a wider bus interface at PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8, and it uses a larger 8192-bit memory bus versus 96 bits.

The Intel Arc A380E wins in several specific categories. It has 32 ROPs and a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, while the MI308X has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The A380E has 8 RT cores, while the MI308X has no RT cores recorded. The A380E has display outputs with 4x DisplayPort 2.0, while the MI308X has no outputs. The A380E has a higher base clock of 2000 MHz versus 1000 MHz for the MI308X. The A380E uses 75 W TDP versus 750 W for the MI308X, a 10x power difference. The A380E has a suggested PSU of 250 W versus 1150 W for the MI308X. The A380E is a single-slot card with recorded dimensions of 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm, while the MI308X is an OAM Module with no dimensions recorded. The A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI308X has no graphics API support recorded. The A380E uses GDDR6 memory at 15.5 Gbps effective, which is a faster per-pin data rate than the HBM3 memory at 10.1 Gbps effective on the MI308X.

The use-case split follows directly from these recorded differences. The MI308X suits workloads that need large memory capacity, high memory bandwidth, and massive FP32 or FP16 throughput. The 192 GB HBM3 pool and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth serve data-intensive compute tasks. The lack of ROPs, RT cores, and display outputs means the MI308X does not serve graphics rendering or display tasks. The 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU indicate a server or data center installation context.

The A380E suits workloads that need display output, rasterization, and ray tracing within a low power budget. The 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate enable display connectivity. The 8 RT cores provide ray tracing capability that the MI308X lacks entirely. The 75 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU allow deployment in systems with modest power delivery. The end-of-life production status and Battlemage successor indicate the A380E is at the end of its product cycle, while the MI308X has no production status or successor recorded.

The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both cards, which reflects the empty benchmark data rather than performance equivalence. The absence of nearest rivals and benchmark scores means the database records no measured performance data for either card. The analysis above therefore derives from the recorded specifications, which show two accelerators with minimal functional overlap. The MI308X is a compute module with no graphics output, and the A380E is a graphics card with no compute-oriented memory configuration. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload requires display output and rasterization or massive memory bandwidth and compute throughput.