AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X vs Intel Arc B770 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X and Intel Arc B770 occupy entirely separate performance domains, and the recorded data makes that split unambiguous. The MI308X is a compute-oriented accelerator designed for massive parallel workloads, while the Arc B770 is a rasterization and ray tracing focused graphics card. There are no head-to-head benchmark results in the database, so the division of strengths must be derived from the architectural specifications and the measured capabilities each component brings to the table.

The MI308X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is recorded at 81.72 TFLOPS, which is more than four times the 19.66 TFLOPS of the Arc B770. In FP16 workloads, the gap becomes even more extreme: the MI308X delivers 653.7 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio, whereas the Arc B770 delivers 39.32 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. That represents a 16-fold advantage in peak FP16 output. Any workload that relies on half-precision arithmetic, such as large-scale AI training or inference, belongs squarely to the MI308X.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also go to the MI308X. It carries 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc B770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s. The MI308X offers 12 times the memory capacity and roughly 20 times the memory bandwidth. For datasets that exceed 16 GB, which is common in scientific computing and machine learning, the Arc B770 cannot function at all, while the MI308X has substantial headroom.

The Arc B770 wins in areas tied to conventional graphics output. It has 128 ROPs and a recorded pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s, while the MI308X has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The MI308X has no display outputs, whereas the Arc B770 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The Arc B770 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI308X has no recorded API support for any of those graphics interfaces. The Arc B770 is the only one of the two capable of driving a display or running a conventional game.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different architectural lineages and target different execution models. The MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, part of the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation. The Arc B770 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture on the BMG-G31 chip, part of the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the similarity ends there.

The MI308X is built for data center scale. Its die measures 1017 mm² and contains 153,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Arc B770 has a die size of 368 mm², with its transistor count listed as unknown. The MI308X therefore uses roughly 2.8 times the silicon area of the Arc B770, and that area is packed with compute resources rather than graphics fixed-function units.

Shader and texture resources strongly favor the MI308X. It has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units (TMUs), while the Arc B770 has 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs. The MI308X texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s, compared to 614.4 GTexel/s for the Arc B770. The Arc B770 does include 32 ray tracing cores and 128 ROPs, features the MI308X lacks entirely, as its ROP count is zero and no RT core count is recorded.

Memory architecture differences are fundamental. The MI308X uses HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, while the Arc B770 uses GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI308X memory clock is listed at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective, while the Arc B770 memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. The higher effective data rate per pin on the Arc B770 does not compensate for the far narrower bus on the MI308X.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Arc B770 has a base clock of 2100 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The Arc B770 runs at higher clocks, but the MI308X compensates with far more execution units.

Power and physical configuration separate the two further. The MI308X is rated at 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, uses an OAM module slot width, and has no power connectors because it draws power through the module interface. The Arc B770 is rated at 225 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 550 W, uses a dual-slot form factor, and requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connection. The MI308X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Arc B770 uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The MI308X was released on 2023-12-05, while the Arc B770 has a recorded release date of 2025-12-31. The MI308X predecessor is the FirePro Data Center series, and the Arc B770 predecessor is the Alchemist series.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS. The MI308X is roughly 4.2 times higher.

Q: Can the AMD MI308X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI308X has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, while the Intel Arc B770 includes 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI308X has 10.3 TB/s bandwidth from 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The Arc B770 has 512.0 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What graphics API support does each card provide?

A: The Intel Arc B770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD MI308X has no recorded DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The MI308X is rated at 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Arc B770 is rated at 225 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc B770 has 32 ray tracing cores. The AMD MI308X has no recorded ray tracing core count.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X | Intel Arc B770 |

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

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | BMG-G31 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe2-HPG |

| Generation | Radeon Instinct (MIx) | Battlemage (Arc 7) |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 368 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2525 MHz, 10.1 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 10.3 TB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 256 |

| ROPs | 0 | 128 |

| RT Cores | null | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 307.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 614.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 19.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) | 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX | null | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | null | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | null | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2025-12-31 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Data Center | Alchemist |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two products, which is expected given their different release dates and market positions. The comparison must therefore be drawn from the recorded specifications that define their compute and graphics capabilities.

The largest single advantage for the MI308X appears in FP16 throughput. It records 653.7 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio, while the Arc B770 records 39.32 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The MI308X is 16.6 times higher in raw FP16 output. This reflects the MI308X design goal of accelerating half-precision neural network workloads, where the 8:1 ratio indicates a large number of FP16 operations per clock relative to FP32.

In FP32, the MI308X records 81.72 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS for the Arc B770, a factor of 4.16. This is the relevant metric for general scientific simulation and many HPC applications. The MI308X also holds a texture rate advantage of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s, a 4.16 times difference, consistent with the ratio of shading units and TMUs.

Memory bandwidth provides another massive gap. At 10.3 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s, the MI308X is 20.1 times higher. This bandwidth differential is critical for memory-bound workloads such as large matrix operations, and it aligns with the MI308X having 192 GB of HBM3 versus 16 GB of GDDR6. The memory bus width difference, 8192 bit versus 256 bit, is a factor of 32, though the higher effective data rate of the Arc B770 memory (16 Gbps versus 10.1 Gbps) partially narrows the realized bandwidth gap.

The Arc B770 holds its wins in graphics-specific metrics. Its pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s compares to 0 MPixel/s for the MI308X, an infinite ratio since the MI308X has no ROPs. The Arc B770 also has 32 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the MI308X recorded data. For any workload that ends in rendering to a screen, the Arc B770 is the only functional option.

Clock speed comparison shows the Arc B770 runs higher: 2100 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost for the MI308X. The Arc B770 boost clock is 14.3 percent higher than the MI308X boost clock, and its base clock is more than double. However, the MI308X compensates with 4.75 times more shading units and 4.75 times more TMUs, which explains why its aggregate throughput remains far higher despite the lower clocks.

Power efficiency is not directly recorded as a ratio in the database, but the TDP figures can be compared. The MI308X consumes 750 W, the Arc B770 consumes 225 W. The MI308X delivers 4.16 times the FP32 throughput at 3.33 times the power, indicating higher FP32 performance per watt in the recorded numbers. In FP16, the MI308X delivers 16.6 times the throughput at 3.33 times the power, a substantial efficiency advantage.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of purpose. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X is the appropriate choice for compute-heavy workloads that require massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, and very high FP16 or FP32 throughput. Its 192 GB HBM3 pool, 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, and 653.7 TFLOPS FP16 performance place it in a different class from the Arc B770, and its lack of display outputs and graphics APIs confirms it is not intended for interactive rendering.

The Intel Arc B770 is the appropriate choice for conventional graphics workloads. It has 128 ROPs, 32 ray tracing cores, a 307.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, and full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It also provides display outputs and requires a 225 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU, making it feasible for standard desktop integration.

The MI308X uses an OAM module form factor, has no power connectors, and requires a 1150 W suggested PSU, which places it in server or accelerator chassis territory. The Arc B770 uses a dual-slot form factor with standard power connectors and a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The MI308X release date is 2023-12-05, the Arc B770 release date is 2025-12-31, so they also belong to different market cycles.

For anyone selecting between these two based on the recorded data, the decision hinges on workload type. If the task involves large-scale compute, AI training, or scientific data processing, the MI308X is the only viable option, as the Arc B770 memory capacity and FP16 throughput cannot accommodate such workloads. If the task involves rendering, gaming, or any display output, the MI308X cannot perform it at all, leaving the Arc B770 as the sole functional choice. Neither product substitutes for the other; the database shows two specialized tools with almost no overlap in capability.