AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc B370 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI325X and the Intel Arc B370 occupy entirely different segments of the hardware spectrum. The MI325X is a data center accelerator with a 1000 W thermal design power, while the Arc B370 is a 25 W integrated graphics processor intended for portable devices. Benchmark data for the MI325X is absent from the database, so its recorded average benchmark score is zero. The Arc B370, however, has one recorded benchmark result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. The Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile of all GPUs in the database, placing it near the lower end of the performance distribution. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186, a 0.2% difference, and the AMD FirePro M2000, which scores 1168, a 1.4% difference. The MI325X holds the 50th percentile, but with no benchmark entries, this percentile is unsubstantiated by actual test data. For compute workloads requiring massive memory capacity, the MI325X is the clear choice based on specifications alone. For integrated graphics in a low-power mobile context, the Arc B370 is the only option with measurable performance data.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc B370 uses the Panther Lake chip built on Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database. The MI325X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the Arc B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The MI325X does not support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, as its APIs are listed as N/A. The Arc B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X has no display outputs, while the Arc B370's display outputs are described as portable device dependent. The MI325X uses an OAM module slot width with no power connectors, while the Arc B370 is an IGP with no power connectors. The MI325X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the Arc B370 has 10 ray tracing cores. The MI325X's memory clock is 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Arc B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are not available in the database, as the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The only benchmark score recorded for either product is the Arc B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1184. The MI325X has no benchmark scores at all. The Arc B370's nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower than the Arc B370. These deltas indicate that the Arc B370 sits in a narrow performance band near these older discrete and mobile graphics parts. The MI325X, lacking any benchmark data, cannot be compared on a test-by-test basis. The recorded data shows the Arc B370's performance percentile is 5%, meaning 95% of all GPUs in the database score higher. The MI325X's percentile is 50%, but this figure is not backed by any actual benchmark entry, making it a placeholder rather than a measured result.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification. The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory with an 8192 bit bus width and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B370 has system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no raster operation pipelines, yielding a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The Arc B370 has 1,280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation pipelines, yielding a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The MI325X's FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS, with FP16 performance also at 81.72 TFLOPS on a 1:1 ratio. The Arc B370's FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS, with FP16 performance at 12.29 TFLOPS on a 2:1 ratio. The MI325X has a thermal design power of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Arc B370 has a thermal design power of 25 W and no suggested PSU listed. The MI325X uses PCIe 5.0 x16 as its bus interface, while the Arc B370 uses an IGP bus interface. The MI325X was released on 2024-10-09, while the Arc B370 was released on 2026-01-26. The MI325X's production status is not listed, while the Arc B370's production status is active. The MI325X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the Arc B370 has no predecessor listed. Neither product has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has a boost clock of 2400 MHz, while the AMD Instinct MI325X has a boost clock of 2100 MHz.

Q: How much memory does the AMD Instinct MI325X have?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory with an 8192 bit bus width and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc B370 uses system shared memory.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference between the two?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has a thermal design power of 1000 W, while the Intel Arc B370 has a thermal design power of 25 W.

Q: Which product has a recorded benchmark score?

A: Only the Intel Arc B370 has a recorded benchmark score, which is 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no benchmark entries in the database.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the Intel Arc B370?

A: The nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 with an average score of 1186, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 with 1190, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M with 1192, and the AMD FirePro M2000 with 1168.

Q: What process nodes do the two products use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Arc B370 uses a 3 nm process from Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins decisively on raw compute specifications. Its FP32 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS is over 13 times the Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s dwarfs the Arc B370's 96.00 GTexel/s. Memory capacity is another clear win: 256 GB of HBM3e with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth versus system shared memory. The MI325X's 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units vastly exceed the Arc B370's 1,280 shading units and 40 texture mapping units. The MI325X also has a larger transistor count at 153,000 million versus the unknown count for the Arc B370. For data center inference or training workloads where memory bandwidth and capacity are critical, the MI325X's specifications clearly dominate.

The Intel Arc B370 wins on several different axes. Its boost clock of 2400 MHz is higher than the MI325X's 2100 MHz. Its pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s is meaningful, while the MI325X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s due to having no raster operation pipelines. The Arc B370 has 20 raster operation pipelines and 10 ray tracing cores, while the MI325X has none of either. The Arc B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI325X supports no graphics APIs. The Arc B370 has display outputs, described as portable device dependent, while the MI325X has no outputs at all. The Arc B370's thermal design power of 25 W is 40 times lower than the MI325X's 1000 W, making it suitable for portable devices. The Arc B370's production status is active, while the MI325X's production status is not listed. The Arc B370 also has a measurable benchmark score of 1184, while the MI325X has none.

The data indicates the MI325X is an accelerator without rendering capabilities, designed for compute tasks where memory and FP32 throughput matter. The Arc B370 is an integrated GPU with rendering and ray tracing support, designed for low-power mobile systems. The 3 nm process node of the Arc B370 versus the 5 nm node of the MI325X reflects their different design goals: density and efficiency for the former, raw scale for the latter. The MI325X's 1017 mm² die size and 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter density demonstrate a massive chip, while the Arc B370's die size remains unknown. The Arc B370's 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio indicates it can double throughput on half-precision workloads, while the MI325X maintains a 1:1 ratio at 81.72 TFLOPS for both precisions. The recorded data shows no direct competition between these two products, as they target disjoint markets with no overlapping benchmarks.