AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI325X or the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile. With an average benchmark score of zero for both parts and zero head-to-head benchmark entries, there is no measured performance data to compare directly. The percentile ranking for each GPU against all other GPUs in the database is 50, placing both in the exact middle of the distribution, but this is a neutral position that reflects the absence of data rather than any performance parity.

What the recorded specifications do show is a dramatic mismatch in raw compute capability. The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS, which converts to 1.28 TFLOPS. The AMD part therefore offers roughly 64 times the FP32 compute of the Intel part, a gap that is extreme even by accelerator versus integrated graphics standards. In FP16, the AMD part again delivers 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part delivers 2.560 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning the AMD part has more than 30 times the FP16 throughput.

Texture rate tells a similar story. The AMD Instinct MI325X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile reaches 40.00 GTexel/s. That is a 64-fold difference in texture fill rate, consistent with the FP32 gap. Pixel rate, however, is where the comparison inverts. The AMD part is rated at 0 MPixel/s, a result of having zero ROPs, while the Intel part is rated at 20.00 GPixel/s with 8 ROPs. The AMD accelerator is not designed to output pixels to a display, so it has no raster output stage.

Memory bandwidth is also in completely different classes. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no fixed figure exists in the database. The AMD memory clock is 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Intel part simply reports system shared memory. The AMD part also has a boost clock of 2100 MHz against a base of 1000 MHz, while the Intel part boosts to 2500 MHz from a 300 MHz base, showing a much wider dynamic range on the integrated part.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products built for entirely different purposes. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a 1000 W OAM module with no display outputs, no API support listed, and a 1017 mm² die. It is designed for compute workloads that require massive FP32 and FP16 throughput, 256 GB of HBM3e, and 6.14 TB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is a 25 W IGP with 256 shading units, 2 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and portable device dependent outputs. It is designed to render graphics on a mobile device.

Who should pick which depends strictly on the workload. For FP32-heavy compute, the MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS versus 1,280.0 GFLOPS, a 63.8x advantage. For FP16 compute, the MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS versus 2.560 TFLOPS, a 31.9x advantage. For texture-heavy workloads, the MI325X delivers 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 40.00 GTexel/s, a 63.8x advantage. For memory-bound workloads, the MI325X delivers 6.14 TB/s versus system dependent bandwidth, with the AMD part also offering 256 GB of dedicated HBM3e.

The Intel part wins in every area related to graphics output. It has 8 ROPs and 20.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the AMD part has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part lists N/A for all three APIs. The Intel part has 2 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part has none listed. The Intel part is an IGP with no power connector and no suggested PSU, while the AMD part requires a 1400 W suggested PSU.

The verdict is straightforward: the MI325X is for compute acceleration without any display capability, and the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is for integrated graphics rendering on portable devices. There is no overlap in intended use cases, and the recorded data shows no benchmark results to suggest either part could substitute for the other.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip called Aqua Vanjaram. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a chip called Wildcat Lake. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, but the transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The AMD part is part of the Instinct (MIx) generation, with a predecessor of Radeon Instinct. The Intel part is part of the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation, with a predecessor of HD Graphics-M. The AMD part has no production status listed, while the Intel part is marked as Active.

The AMD accelerator has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, but 0 ROPs and no ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed. The Intel integrated part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. The AMD part has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD part uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part uses an IGP bus interface. The AMD part has no display outputs, while the Intel part has portable device dependent outputs. The AMD part is an OAM Module slot width, while the Intel part is an IGP slot width. The AMD part has no power connectors and a 1000 W TDP, while the Intel part also has no power connectors but a 25 W TDP.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every specification field recorded in the database.

Process node: AMD uses 5 nm at TSMC; Intel uses 3 nm at Intel. Transistors: AMD has 153,000 million; Intel is unknown. Die size: AMD is 1017 mm²; Intel is unknown. Transistor density: AMD is 150.4M per mm²; Intel has no value listed.

Base clock: AMD is 1000 MHz; Intel is 300 MHz. Boost clock: AMD is 2100 MHz; Intel is 2500 MHz. Memory clock: AMD is 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective; Intel is system shared. Memory size: AMD is 256 GB of HBM3e; Intel is system shared. Memory bus width: AMD is 8192 bit; Intel is system shared. Memory bandwidth: AMD is 6.14 TB/s; Intel is system dependent.

Shading units: AMD has 19,456; Intel has 256. TMUs: AMD has 1,216; Intel has 16. ROPs: AMD has 0; Intel has 8. Ray tracing cores: AMD has none listed; Intel has 2. Pixel rate: AMD is 0 MPixel/s; Intel is 20.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: AMD is 2,553.6 GTexel/s; Intel is 40.00 GTexel/s. FP32: AMD is 81.72 TFLOPS; Intel is 1,280.0 GFLOPS. FP16: AMD is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1); Intel is 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: AMD is 1000 W; Intel is 25 W. Slot width: AMD is OAM Module; Intel is IGP. Power connectors: both have none. Suggested PSU: AMD is 1400 W; Intel has no value listed. Bus interface: AMD is PCIe 5.0 x16; Intel is IGP. Display outputs: AMD has no outputs; Intel has portable device dependent. DirectX: AMD is N/A; Intel is 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL: AMD is N/A; Intel is 4.6. Vulkan: AMD is N/A; Intel is 1.4.

Release date: AMD is 2024-10-09; Intel is 2026-04-15. Predecessor: AMD is Radeon Instinct; Intel is HD Graphics-M. Production status: AMD has none listed; Intel is Active.

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two parts?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 64 times in favor of the AMD part.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel part has 2 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: Which part has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth from 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no fixed bandwidth figure is recorded.

Q: What is the TDP of each part?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the pixel rates of the two parts?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has a pixel rate of 20.00 GPixel/s with 8 ROPs. The AMD Instinct MI325X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s with 0 ROPs.