AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc 130V Mobile Comparison

The AMD Instinct MI325X and Intel Arc 130V Mobile occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The MI325X is a data center accelerator built for massive compute workloads, while the Arc 130V is an integrated graphics processor for thin laptops. The recorded data confirms that these parts share almost nothing in common, from their physical design to their intended roles. This analysis compares the two based solely on the specifications and architecture details in the database.

FAQ

Q: What is the core architectural difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses the Xe2-LPG architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process. The MI325X is an OAM module with no display outputs, whereas the Arc 130V is an IGP with portable device dependent display outputs.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192 bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc 130V uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, meaning it borrows from the host system’s RAM.

Q: Which chip has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Arc 130V delivers 3.315 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.630 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The MI325X has roughly 24.6 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: What are the power requirements of each?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Arc 130V has a 37 W TDP and no suggested PSU because it is integrated into a mobile processor.

Q: Do either of these chips support modern graphics APIs?

A: The Arc 130V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X has no listed API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, reflecting its compute-focused design.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The MI325X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, with a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc 130V has an unknown transistor count on a 172 mm² die with no density figure listed.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, which is a compute-optimized design. It does not include traditional rasterization features like ROPs, instead reporting a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The chip is built on TSMC’s 5 nm process and uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip. It has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, but no RT cores or tensor cores are listed. The MI325X is an OAM module, a form factor used in servers, and it has no display outputs. Its power delivery comes through the OAM slot with no dedicated power connectors, and it requires a 1400 W suggested PSU.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses the Xe2-LPG architecture, which is designed for integrated graphics in mobile processors. It is built on TSMC’s 3 nm process and uses the Lunar Lake chip. The Arc 130V has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 28 ROPs, plus 7 RT cores. It reports a pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 103.6 GTexel/s. This is an IGP part, meaning it has no separate memory bus and relies on system shared memory. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, and its API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The process node difference is significant: the MI325X uses 5 nm while the Arc 130V uses 3 nm, both from TSMC. However, the MI325X’s die is far larger at 1017 mm² compared to 172 mm² for the Arc 130V. The MI325X has 153,000 million transistors, while the Arc 130V’s transistor count is unknown. The shading unit count difference is also substantial: 19,456 for the MI325X versus 896 for the Arc 130V.

The memory architecture is a fundamental divider. The MI325X has dedicated HBM3e memory with a 256 GB capacity and an 8192 bit bus, achieving 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc 130V uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth labeled as system dependent. This means the Arc 130V’s performance scales with the host system’s memory configuration, while the MI325X has a fixed, enormous memory pipeline.

Clock speeds also differ in direction. The MI325X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz, with memory running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Arc 130V has a much lower base clock of 300 MHz but a boost of 1850 MHz. The Arc 130V’s memory clock is listed as system shared, not a fixed figure.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is empty, so no direct measured comparisons exist in the database. However, the specification data provides clear performance indicators. The MI325X’s FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is approximately 24.6 times the Arc 130V’s 3.315 TFLOPS. In FP16, the MI325X again delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Arc 130V reaches 6.630 TFLOPS, making the MI325X about 12.3 times faster.

Texture rate favors the MI325X heavily. The MI325X processes 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Arc 130V manages 103.6 GTexel/s. That is a 24.6 times difference, matching the FP32 ratio. The pixel rate tells a different story: the MI325X has a 0 MPixel/s rate, while the Arc 130V produces 51.80 GPixel/s. This reflects the MI325X’s lack of traditional rasterization hardware, not a performance advantage for Intel in all tasks.

Memory bandwidth is where the MI325X separates itself from any integrated part. The MI325X offers 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth, while the Arc 130V’s bandwidth is system dependent, so no fixed comparison is possible. In practice, the MI325X’s dedicated HBM3e stack is designed for bandwidth-heavy compute workloads. The Arc 130V must share the system memory bus with the CPU, which constrains its effective bandwidth.

The ROP count is zero for the MI325X, while the Arc 130V has 28 ROPs. The MI325X has 1,216 TMUs against 56 for the Arc 130V. The MI325X has no RT cores listed, while the Arc 130V has 7 RT cores. The MI325X has no API support listed, while the Arc 130V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The power envelope is another major separator. The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP, while the Arc 130V has a 37 W TDP. This is a power ratio of roughly 27 to 1. The MI325X requires a 1400 W suggested PSU, while the Arc 130V has no PSU requirement because it is integrated into a mobile chip.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every measurable field. The MI325X uses a 5 nm process, the Arc 130V uses 3 nm. The MI325X’s die is 1017 mm², the Arc 130V’s is 172 mm². The MI325X has 153,000 million transistors, a figure not listed for the Arc 130V. Transistor density for the MI325X is 150.4M per mm², with no density data for the Arc 130V.

Clock speeds: the MI325X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The Arc 130V runs at 300 MHz base and 1850 MHz boost. The MI325X has a fixed memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Arc 130V’s memory clock is system shared.

Memory capacity: 256 GB for the MI325X versus system shared for the Arc 130V. Memory type: HBM3e versus system shared. Bus width: 8192 bit versus system shared. Bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s versus system dependent.

Compute units: the MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Arc 130V has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 28 ROPs. RT cores: none listed for the MI325X, 7 for the Arc 130V. Tensor cores are not listed for either.

Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s for the MI325X, 51.80 GPixel/s for the Arc 130V. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 103.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 3.315 TFLOPS. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 6.630 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and form factor: the MI325X has a 1000 W TDP, OAM module slot, no power connectors, and a 1400 W suggested PSU. The Arc 130V has a 37 W TDP, IGP slot, no power connector data, and no suggested PSU.

Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X versus IGP for the Arc 130V. Display outputs: none for the MI325X versus portable device dependent for the Arc 130V. APIs: none for the MI325X versus DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for the Arc 130V.

Release dates differ by a few weeks: the MI325X released on 2024-10-09, the Arc 130V on 2024-09-23. The MI325X’s predecessor is Radeon Instinct, the Arc 130V’s predecessor is HD Graphics-M. The Arc 130V has a production status of Active, while the MI325X’s status is not listed.

The Verdict

The data shows two products with fundamentally different purposes. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a compute accelerator with enormous memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, and high TFLOPS figures. It has no display outputs and no graphics API support, confirming that it is not intended for rendering or gaming. Its 1000 W TDP and OAM form factor place it in server racks with dedicated power infrastructure.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is an integrated GPU for mobile devices. It has display outputs, full modern graphics API support, and a 37 W TDP. Its performance is constrained by system shared memory, but it includes RT cores and traditional rasterization hardware, which the MI325X lacks.

A user who needs FP32 or FP16 compute for AI training, scientific simulation, or similar workloads should look at the MI325X. Its 256 GB HBM3e memory and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth are unmatched in this comparison. A user who needs a graphics solution for a laptop should look at the Arc 130V, as it is the only one of the two with display outputs and API support.

The benchmark scores are zero for both parts, and the percentile field shows 50 for each, indicating no measured performance data exists in the database. The nearest rival lists are empty for both. Therefore, the verdict rests entirely on the architecture and specification differences.

Where Each One Wins

The MI325X wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 figures of 81.72 TFLOPS dwarf the Arc 130V’s numbers. The texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is 24.6 times higher, which matters for compute-heavy texture sampling workloads. Its memory bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s is a class of its own, enabled by the 8192 bit bus and HBM3e memory. The 256 GB capacity allows large datasets to reside on the accelerator without host memory transfers. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides a high-speed connection to the host system.

The Arc 130V wins in traditional graphics functionality. It has 28 ROPs and a pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s, while the MI325X has a pixel rate of 0. RT cores are present on the Arc 130V for ray tracing workloads, with none listed for the MI325X. The Arc 130V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling modern gaming and graphics applications. The MI325X lists no API support.

The Arc 130V also wins in power efficiency. Its 37 W TDP is a fraction of the MI325X’s 1000 W TDP. It uses the 3 nm process, which is more advanced than the 5 nm node used by the MI325X. The Arc 130V’s 172 mm² die is much smaller, and it requires no external power connectors or high-wattage PSU.

The MI325X wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. The Arc 130V relies on system shared memory, which is flexible but limited by the host system’s memory channels. The MI325X’s dedicated 256 GB pool with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth is designed for data center scale problems. The MI325X also wins in shading unit count, TMU count, and FP16 throughput when normalized to raw numbers.

The Arc 130V wins in portability and integration. As an IGP, it is part of a mobile processor, requiring no additional board space. The MI325X is an OAM module, which requires a server chassis. The Arc 130V’s display outputs make it usable in laptops, while the MI325X has none.

The MI325X wins in transistor count and die size, but these are not advantages by themselves. They reflect the scale of the compute hardware. The Arc 130V wins in process node, using 3 nm versus 5 nm, which improves density and efficiency per watt. The recorded data does not include transistor density for the Arc 130V, so a direct efficiency comparison is not possible.

For AI inference and training, the MI325X is the clear choice based on its FP16 performance and memory bandwidth. For client graphics, the Arc 130V is the only viable option because it has actual display outputs and API support. The MI325X cannot output video, and the Arc 130V cannot match the MI325X’s compute scale. The two products do not compete; they serve separate markets. The database shows no benchmark overlap, no nearest rivals, and no measured scores, so the distinction is purely architectural.