AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc 140V Mobile Comparison

The AMD Instinct MI325X and the Intel Arc 140V Mobile occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, one a massive data-center accelerator and the other a compact integrated graphics processor for laptops. The recorded data shows no head-to-head benchmarks between these two parts, as they target entirely different markets, but their specification sheets reveal stark contrasts in every measurable category. The MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Arc 140V uses Xe2-LPG on a 3 nm TSMC process. Both sit at the 50th percentile in the database, though this reflects their respective peer groups rather than any direct comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark scores for the AMD Instinct MI325X and the Intel Arc 140V Mobile. The winsA and winsB fields both show 0, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. This absence is consistent with their target applications: the MI325X is an OAM Module with no display outputs, designed for server racks, while the Arc 140V is an IGP for portable devices. Their average benchmark scores are both 0, and their percentileVsAllGpus values are identical at 50, but this is a database artifact of sparse data rather than a meaningful comparison.

The closest quantitative comparison comes from raw compute capabilities. The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for FP32 operations, while the Arc 140V delivers 3.994 TFLOPS, a difference of roughly 20 times. In FP16, the MI325X again provides 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Arc 140V provides 7.987 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The texture rates differ similarly: the MI325X achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s, and the Arc 140V achieves 124.8 GTexel/s. Pixel rates show a different pattern, the MI325X reports 0 MPixel/s because it lacks ROPs, while the Arc 140V reports 62.40 GPixel/s.

Memory bandwidth is another major divider. The MI325X accesses 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192 bit bus for 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc 140V uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, making its effective throughput reliant on the host laptop's memory configuration. The MI325X clocks a 1500 MHz memory speed with 6 Gbps effective rate, while the Arc 140V has no dedicated memory clock, only system shared memory.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures diverge completely. The MI325X uses CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-focused design for accelerators, built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The Arc 140V uses Xe2-LPG, Intel's low-power graphics architecture for mobile processors, built on the Lunar Lake chip. The MI325X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the Arc 140V belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) generation.

The process nodes differ by two generations of scaling. The MI325X uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Arc 140V uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. The die sizes reflect their roles: the MI325X measures 1017 mm² and contains 153,000 million transistors, yielding a density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc 140V measures 172 mm² with an unknown transistor count and no density figure. The MI325X is roughly six times larger in die area, and its transistor count is listed while the Arc 140V's is unknown.

The compute units scale accordingly. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Arc 140V has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI325X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the Arc 140V includes 8 RT cores. Neither part lists tensor cores. The MI325X's lack of ROPs and pixel output aligns with its role as a compute accelerator, not a display adapter. The Arc 140V's 32 ROPs and 62.40 GPixel/s pixel rate confirm its purpose as a graphics output device.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI325X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The Arc 140V runs at a 300 MHz base and 1950 MHz boost. The MI325X's higher base clock supports sustained compute workloads, while the Arc 140V's low base clock reflects power-saving idle states in mobile devices. The MI325X operates at a 1000 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the Arc 140V operates at 37 W TDP with no suggested PSU listed.

Where Each One Wins

The MI325X wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS exceeds the Arc 140V's 3.994 TFLOPS by a factor of about 20. Its FP16 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio exceeds the Arc 140V's 7.987 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio by a factor of about 10. The texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s gives the MI325X a roughly 20 times advantage in texture fill. Memory bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s versus system dependent bandwidth gives the MI325X a decisive edge for memory-intensive workloads, with 256 GB of dedicated HBM3e capacity versus system shared memory.

The Arc 140V wins in graphics output and efficiency. Its 32 ROPs enable a pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s, while the MI325X reports 0 MPixel/s and has no display outputs. The Arc 140V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI325X lists N/A for all three APIs, confirming it cannot render graphics for display. The Arc 140V's 37 W TDP versus the MI325X's 1000 W TDP shows a 27 times lower power draw, which is essential for mobile integration. The Arc 140V also includes 8 RT cores, while the MI325X lists none.

The MI325X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Arc 140V uses an IGP interface. The MI325X is an OAM Module with no power connectors, while the Arc 140V is an IGP with no power connector details. The MI325X's production status is not listed, while the Arc 140V is marked as Active. The MI325X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, and the Arc 140V's predecessor is HD Graphics-M.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every specification field. The process node is 5 nm for the MI325X and 3 nm for the Arc 140V. The die size is 1017 mm² versus 172 mm². The transistor count is 153,000 million for the MI325X and unknown for the Arc 140V. The transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI325X and not listed for the Arc 140V.

Clocks show the MI325X with a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc 140V has a 300 MHz base and 1950 MHz boost. The MI325X has a dedicated memory clock of 1500 MHz at 6 Gbps effective, while the Arc 140V lists memory as system shared. The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192 bit bus, while the Arc 140V has system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Shading units are 19,456 for the MI325X versus 1,024 for the Arc 140V. TMUs are 1,216 versus 64. ROPs are 0 versus 32. RT cores are not listed for the MI325X and 8 for the Arc 140V. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI325X and 62.40 GPixel/s for the Arc 140V. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio versus 7.987 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio. TDP is 1000 W versus 37 W. The slot width is OAM Module for the MI325X and IGP for the Arc 140V. The MI325X has no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the Arc 140V has no power connector data and no suggested PSU.

The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X and IGP for the Arc 140V. Display outputs are none for the MI325X and portable device dependent for the Arc 140V. The MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the Arc 140V lists 12 Ultimate (12_2), 4.6, and 1.4 respectively. Release dates are 2024-10-09 for the MI325X and 2024-09-23 for the Arc 140V, about two weeks apart.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has 19,456 shading units, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile has 1,024 shading units.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 performance?

A: The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, and the Arc 140V delivers 3.994 TFLOPS, making the MI325X approximately 20 times faster in FP32.

Q: Does the MI325X support DirectX?

A: No, the MI325X lists DirectX as N/A, while the Arc 140V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the memory configuration of the Arc 140V?

A: The Arc 140V uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, no dedicated VRAM.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W, and the Arc 140V has a TDP of 37 W.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The Arc 140V has 8 RT cores, while the MI325X lists no RT cores.

Q: What process nodes do they use?

A: The MI325X uses a 5 nm process, and the Arc 140V uses a 3 nm process, both from TSMC.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products with no functional overlap. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a compute accelerator with 256 GB of HBM3e memory, 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 1000 W TDP. Its use case is server-side computation where massive memory capacity and bandwidth matter more than pixel output.

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile is an integrated graphics processor with 32 ROPs, 62.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It draws 37 W and fits into mobile devices as an IGP. Its 8 RT cores and system shared memory suit it for portable rendering tasks.

The MI325X is the correct choice for workloads that need its 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 at 1:1 ratio, its 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate, or its 6.14 TB/s memory bandwidth. The Arc 140V is the only option here for any task involving display output, given the MI325X has no outputs. The Arc 140V's 37 W TDP makes it viable for battery-powered systems, while the MI325X's 1000 W TDP requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. The production status is Active for the Arc 140V and not listed for the MI325X, which may indicate availability differences, but the recorded data does not specify.

The MI325X's 1017 mm² die and 153,000 million transistors show a design prioritizing raw throughput, while the Arc 140V's 172 mm² die and 3 nm process show a design prioritizing integration efficiency. The MI325X has no ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, confirming it cannot generate frames. The Arc 140V has 32 ROPs and a 62.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, confirming it can drive displays. The release dates are close, with the Arc 140V on 2024-09-23 and the MI325X on 2024-10-09, but the target markets remain separate.

Benchmark results indicate that any comparison must be framed by intended use. The MI325X outperforms in every compute metric: shading units, TMUs, texture rate, FP32, FP16, memory size, memory bus width, and memory bandwidth. The Arc 140V outperforms in every display metric: ROPs, pixel rate, RT cores, graphics API support, and display outputs. The MI325X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Arc 140V uses an IGP interface. The MI325X has no power connectors, while the Arc 140V has none listed. The MI325X's memory clock is 1500 MHz, while the Arc 140V's memory is system dependent.

The verdict follows the specification split. Choose the MI325X for data-center compute tasks that require 256 GB of HBM3e, 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, or 81.72 TFLOPS FP16. Choose the Arc 140V for mobile graphics where 37 W power, 62.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support are necessary. The MI325X has a 2100 MHz boost clock versus the Arc 140V's 1950 MHz, but the Arc 140V's 8 RT cores and 32 ROPs give it capabilities the MI325X lacks entirely. The MI325X's 1000 W TDP versus the Arc 140V's 37 W TDP is a 27 times difference. The MI325X's 8192 bit memory bus versus system shared memory for the Arc 140V is the defining architectural gap. The database shows no benchmark overlap, so the selection depends on the platform and workload, not on comparative scores.