Arc B750 vs MI300X OAM
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Arc B750 | MI300X OAM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FP32 compute (TFLOPS) | 17.2 | 90.3 | -80.9% |
| VRAM | 16 GB GDDR6 | 192 GB HBM3 | — |
| Memory bandwidth (GB/s) | 448 | 5,300 | -91.5% |
| TDP (W) | 225 | 750 | — |
| Stable Diffusion (it/s) | 2.6 | 110.0 | -97.6% |
| LLM inference (tokens/s) | 35 | 420 | -91.7% |
| Launch MSRP (USD) | $349 | $20,000 | -98.3% |
- MI300X OAM offers 90.3 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 17.2. These cards span different eras or segments, so modern gaming benchmarks are not directly comparable — judge them within their own generation and use case.
Verdict: Arc B750 or MI300X OAM?
Arc B750 advantages
- Power efficiency (+70%)
- Affordability (+98%)
MI300X OAM advantages
- Video memory (+92%)
- Memory bandwidth (+92%)
- AI image generation (+98%)
- Local LLM inference (+92%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Arc B750 if you want lower power draw, heat and noise.
- Choose the MI300X OAM if you play the latest titles at high textures or do GPU-accelerated work.
- Choose the Arc B750 if you want the better price for the performance.
Arc B750 vs MI300X OAM: which should you choose?
Arc B750 — Intel desktop graphics card (2025, Battlemage) with 16 GB of GDDR6, averaging 41 fps at 1440p; launched at $349.
MI300X OAM — AMD server graphics card (2023, CDNA 3.0) with 192 GB of HBM3; launched at $20,000.
Arc B750 vs MI300X OAM: MI300X OAM has more raw compute. MI300X OAM offers 90.3 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 17.2. These cards span different eras or segments, so modern gaming benchmarks are not directly comparable — judge them within their own generation and use case.
Different eras, different missions
These two parts do not compete head-to-head: Arc B750 (2025, Desktop) and MI300X OAM (2023, Server) come from different generations or market segments, so modern game benchmarks do not apply to both. The specification table above is best read as architectural context — process node, memory technology and power budgets show how far GPU design has moved.
Specifications at a glance
Arc B750 carries 16 GB of GDDR6 against 192 GB of HBM3 on MI300X OAM, with board powers of 225 W and 750 W respectively.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the graphics card comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Arc B750 better than the MI300X OAM?
MI300X OAM takes the overall edge, though Arc B750 wins in specific areas worth weighing. MI300X OAM offers 90.3 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 17.2. These cards span different eras or segments, so modern gaming benchmarks are not directly comparable — judge them within their own generation and use case.
What is the main difference between the Arc B750 and the MI300X OAM?
MI300X OAM offers 90.3 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 17.2. These cards span different eras or segments, so modern gaming benchmarks are not directly comparable — judge them within their own generation and use case.
Which should I choose?
Choose the Arc B750 if you want lower power draw, heat and noise. Choose the MI300X OAM if you play the latest titles at high textures or do GPU-accelerated work.
Methodology
Graphics cards are compared on 3DMark Time Spy scores, average gaming frame rates at 1080p/1440p/4K, FP32 compute throughput, VRAM capacity and type, memory bandwidth, board power (TDP) and launch MSRP — plus AI workload throughput (Stable Diffusion iterations/s and local LLM tokens/s) where measured. Vintage and server GPUs without modern benchmark results are compared on specifications only, clearly labelled. Frame rates are averages across a game suite at high settings; specific titles vary.