AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon 740M Comparison

AMD’s Instinct MI325X and Radeon 740M occupy opposite extremes of the company’s GPU portfolio, one a 1000 W accelerator module for server racks, the other a 45 W integrated processor for thin laptops. The database records no shared benchmark suite for the two, as the MI325X ships with zero recorded benchmark entries while the 740M carries two Geekbench scores. The comparison therefore rests on architectural specifications, memory configurations, and the limited performance data available for the integrated part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins in every category related to raw compute throughput and memory capacity. Its FP32 output is listed at 81.72 TFLOPS, a figure that dwarfs the 740M’s 2.867 TFLOPS by a factor of roughly 28.5. Texture rate follows the same pattern: the MI325X delivers 2,553.6 GTexel/s against 44.80 GTexel/s for the 740M. The accelerator also holds a massive memory advantage with 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth, while the 740M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The MI325X is built for compute tasks that require enormous data movement and parallel floating-point work, and the recorded specifications confirm that role.

The AMD Radeon 740M wins in areas tied to integration and modern client features. It is a 4 nm part with support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI325X lists N/A for all three APIs. The 740M includes 4 ray tracing cores and 8 ROPs, whereas the MI325X records zero ROPs and no RT core count. The 740M also runs at a higher boost clock of 2800 MHz compared to the MI325X’s 2100 MHz, and it is an active production part with display outputs dependent on the motherboard. The MI325X has no display outputs at all. For a desktop or laptop user needing graphics output, API support, and ray tracing, the 740M is the only one of the two that functions as a conventional GPU.

The Verdict

The data positions the MI325X as a dedicated compute accelerator with no graphics pipeline. Its zero ROP count, no display outputs, and N/A API entries indicate it is not intended for rendering or interactive use. The 740M, by contrast, is an integrated GPU with a full feature set for client workloads, including modern graphics APIs and ray tracing hardware. The MI325X’s average benchmark score is recorded as 0 with a 50th percentile ranking across all GPUs, reflecting the absence of recorded tests. The 740M holds a 53rd percentile ranking with an average benchmark score of 12,870, derived from its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results. Within the database, the 740M sits slightly above the AMD FirePro W5100, which scores 12,847, and slightly below the AMD Radeon RX 580, which scores 12,928. Any buyer choosing between these two parts would be selecting between incompatible use cases: the MI325X for high-throughput compute in a server context, the 740M for integrated graphics in a client system.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark results exist in the database for the MI325X and the 740M. The MI325X has no recorded benchmark entries, so its performance can only be inferred from its listed specifications. The FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is the clearest indicator of its compute capability, as is the 6.14 TB/s memory bandwidth. The 740M’s recorded Geekbench OpenCL score is 10,172 and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 15,568, producing the 12,870 average. The MI325X’s 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 rating is not directly comparable to a Geekbench score, but the scale of difference in shading units, 19,456 versus 256, and texture mapping units, 1,216 versus 16, establishes a decisive compute gap. The 740M’s nearest rivals in the database all cluster within a narrow band: the AMD FirePro W5100 at 12,847 is 0.2% ahead, the AMD Radeon Pro 455 at 12,831 is 0.3% ahead, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 at 12,830 is 0.3% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 580 at 12,928 is 0.4% behind. These small deltas show that the 740M performs in line with older discrete desktop GPUs, despite being an integrated solution.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X records 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon 740M records 2.867 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI325X support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A for the MI325X. The Radeon 740M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Instinct MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 740M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: How does the Radeon 740M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The 740M has an average benchmark score of 12,870. It is 0.2% behind the AMD FirePro W5100, 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 455, 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 580.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon 740M includes 4 ray tracing cores. The Instinct MI325X lists no ray tracing core count in the database.

Q: What are the process nodes for these two GPUs?

A: The Instinct MI325X uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Radeon 740M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families. The Instinct MI325X uses CDNA 3.0 with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the Radeon 740M uses RDNA 3.0 with the Phoenix2 chip. The MI325X is built on a 5 nm TSMC process and contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The 740M is built on a 4 nm TSMC process with 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, giving a density of 152.6 million per mm². Despite the smaller absolute transistor count, the 740M has a slightly higher transistor density due to the more advanced node.

The compute resources differ by orders of magnitude. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, while the 740M has 256 shading units and 16 texture mapping units. The MI325X records zero ROPs and no ray tracing cores, while the 740M has 8 ROPs and 4 ray tracing cores. Clock behavior also diverges: the MI325X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the 740M runs at an 800 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost. The MI325X’s memory clock is listed as 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the 740M’s memory clock is tied to system shared memory.

The power and form factor profiles are starkly different. The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W, uses an OAM module slot, and has a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The 740M has a TDP of 45 W, is an IGP, and has no suggested PSU listed. The MI325X connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the 740M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Neither part requires power connectors. The MI325X has no display outputs, while the 740M’s outputs are motherboard dependent. Release dates also differ: the MI325X launched on October 9, 2024, and the 740M launched on January 30, 2024. The MI325X’s predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, and the 740M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP with a successor of Navi III IGP. The MI325X is a compute module with no graphics stack, while the 740M is a fully featured integrated GPU with modern API support and ray tracing.