AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc B370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data offers no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X and the Intel Arc B370. The MI308X has no benchmark entries in the database, while the Arc B370 has a single recorded result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. This places the Arc B370 at the 5th percentile of all GPUs tracked by the database, indicating that it outperforms only a small fraction of the entire GPU population.

For the Intel Arc B370, the nearest rivals in the database show a tightly clustered performance band. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 posts an average score of 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a 0.5% advantage. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M leads the group with 1192, sitting 0.7% above the Arc B370. On the other side, the AMD FirePro M2000 trails with 1168, which is 1.4% behind the Arc B370. These margins are narrow, all within a 2.1% spread, which suggests the Arc B370 delivers performance comparable to older discrete and mobile graphics solutions from roughly a decade earlier.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X, by contrast, carries a 50th percentile ranking across all GPUs and an average benchmark score of zero, reflecting the absence of measured results. Its theoretical compute specifications are extensive, but the database contains no empirical scores to place against the Arc B370 or any other competitor. Therefore, any direct numeric comparison between the two products is impossible from the available data. The only measurable benchmark belongs to the Intel part, and its score of 1184 stands alone as the sole data point for this pairing.

The lack of overlapping benchmark entries reinforces that these two devices occupy entirely different segments of the market. The MI308X is an accelerator module with no display outputs and no consumer-facing application programming interface support listed, while the Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor designed for portable devices. The Arc B370's single score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 provides a reference point for its capabilities, but no comparable score exists for the MI308X to establish a relative performance gap.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Arc B370 is the only one of the two with a recorded benchmark result. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it at the 5th percentile, with nearest rivals within a narrow 1.4% margin. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X has no benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals listed, so its real-world performance cannot be assessed from the database. The verdict is therefore split: for users seeking a verified, measured graphics solution, the Arc B370 is the only option with empirical support. For users targeting the theoretical compute ceiling, the MI308X presents far larger specifications on paper, but the database offers no confirmation of how those specifications translate into benchmark results.

The Arc B370's nearest rival comparison shows it is statistically indistinguishable from the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000, with deltas ranging from -0.7% to +1.4%. This indicates that the Arc B370 delivers performance in line with those older parts. The MI308X cannot be positioned in this ranking due to missing data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a die size of 1017 mm² and 153,000 million transistors. The Intel Arc B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on Intel's 3 nm process, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. The MI308X has a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter, a figure not available for the Arc B370.

The MI308X is based on the Aqua Vanjaram chip and belongs to the Radeon Instinct MIx generation, released in December 2023. The Arc B370 uses the Panther Lake chip and is part of the Arc Graphics-M Panther Lake generation, with a release date in January 2026 and an active production status. The MI308X has no production status listed, no display outputs, and no API support details, whereas the Arc B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Feature differences are substantial. The MI308X includes 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, but has zero ROPs, zero pixel rate, and no listed ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Arc B370 includes 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores, with a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The MI308X has a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and an FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the Arc B370. FP16 performance also diverges sharply: the MI308X reaches 653.7 TFLOPS at an 8:1 ratio, while the Arc B370 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Memory architecture is entirely different. The MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 2525 MHz, which translates to 10.1 Gbps effective. The Arc B370 uses system shared memory, with bus width, type, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The MI308X draws 750 W with a suggested power supply of 1150 W, whereas the Arc B370 draws only 25 W. The MI308X uses an OAM module slot with no power connectors, while the Arc B370 is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The MI308X interfaces via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc B370 uses an IGP bus interface.

FAQ

Q: What is the only recorded benchmark score between the two products?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X has no benchmark entries.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B370 is 0.2% behind the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, 0.5% behind the ATI Radeon HD 5770, 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and 1.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000.

Q: Which product has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X lists 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc B370 lists 6.144 TFLOPS.

Q: What memory configuration does each product use?

A: The MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI308X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc B370 has a 25 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which product supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Arc B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X has no API support data listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc B370 wins on measured performance data. It has a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, a 5th percentile ranking, and a set of nearest rivals that establish its position relative to older GPUs. It also wins on power efficiency, with a 25 W TDP versus 750 W, and on API support, offering DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It includes 20 ROPs, 10 ray tracing cores, and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, all of which are absent or zero on the MI308X. The Arc B370 is an active production part with a January 2026 release date, while the MI308X has no production status.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X wins on raw specification scale. Its 19,456 shading units dwarf the Arc B370's 1,280. Its 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate is far above the Arc B370's 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS and FP16 throughput of 653.7 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS show a massive compute advantage on paper. The MI308X memory subsystem is also larger: 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, compared to system shared memory. The MI308X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and an OAM module form factor, while the Arc B370 is an IGP with no dedicated memory.

For use cases, the Arc B370 suits portable devices where low power and integrated graphics are required, given its 25 W TDP, IGP slot width, and portable device dependent display outputs. The MI308X suits data center compute workloads that require large memory capacity and high bandwidth, given its 192 GB HBM3, 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, and OAM module design with no display outputs.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The MI308X uses a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Arc B370 uses a 3 nm Intel process. Transistor count is 153,000 million for the MI308X and unknown for the Arc B370. Die size is 1017 mm² versus unknown. Transistor density is 150.4 million per mm² for the MI308X, with no figure for the Arc B370.

Clock speeds differ: the MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the Arc B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Memory clocks are 2525 MHz for the MI308X, with the Arc B370 using system shared memory. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and no listed ray tracing or tensor cores. The Arc B370 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI308X and 48.00 GPixel/s for the Arc B370. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS. FP16 is 653.7 TFLOPS at 8:1 versus 12.29 TFLOPS at 2:1.

TDP is 750 W versus 25 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus IGP. Power connectors are none for both. Suggested PSU is 1150 W for the MI308X and not listed for the Arc B370. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus IGP. Display outputs are none versus portable device dependent. API support is absent for the MI308X, while the Arc B370 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are December 2023 for the MI308X and January 2026 for the Arc B370. Production status is absent for the MI308X and active for the Arc B370. Launch MSRP is not available for either product.