AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc Graphics 24EU Comparison

The Verdict

The database contains no shared benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI325X and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU. The MI325X has no recorded benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals, while the Arc Graphics 24EU holds a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733 and a percentile rank of 3 among all GPUs. The MI325X carries a percentile of 50, which places it at the median of the database, but that percentile is not tied to any measured workload result. Without overlapping tests, a direct performance comparison cannot be established from the recorded data.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the MI325X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, meaning it is not suited for graphics rendering workloads. The Arc Graphics 24EU is an integrated graphics processor with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, making it the only one of the two that can drive a display and run graphics APIs. Users selecting between these parts will be choosing based on intended function rather than benchmark equivalence. The MI325X targets high-throughput compute tasks, while the Arc Graphics 24EU serves as a processor-integrated graphics solution for everyday rendering. The data does not support a recommendation for one over the other in a shared workload, since no such workload exists in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Arrow Lake-S chip, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The MI325X integrates 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, while the Arc Graphics 24EU integrates 192 shading units and 12 texture mapping units. The MI325X reports no pixel rate, listing 0 MPixel/s, and no ROPs, while the Arc Graphics 24EU has 6 ROPs and a pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s.

The MI325X operates at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz and 6 Gbps effective. The Arc Graphics 24EU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, with system-shared memory. Memory capacity and bandwidth differ fundamentally: the MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth, while the Arc Graphics 24EU uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The MI325X also has a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Arc Graphics 24EU has a texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s, FP32 throughput of 768.0 GFLOPS, and FP16 at 1.536 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical configuration separate the two as well. The MI325X is an OAM module with a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested power supply of 1400 W, using no power connectors and no display outputs. The Arc Graphics 24EU is an integrated graphics processor with a TDP of 65 W, no power connectors listed, no suggested power supply, and motherboard-dependent display outputs. The MI325X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Arc Graphics 24EU uses a Ring Bus. The MI325X has no API entries for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan; the Arc Graphics 24EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Transistor density also differs: the MI325X reaches 150.4M transistors per mm², while the Arc Graphics 24EU reaches 73.3M per mm².

Where Each One Wins

The data shows distinct domains for each product. The MI325X wins in raw compute capacity. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is over one hundred times the Arc Graphics 24EU's 768.0 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is over one hundred times the 24.00 GTexel/s of the Arc part. Memory bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s on the MI325X dwarfs the system-dependent bandwidth of the Arc Graphics 24EU, and the 256 GB HBM3e capacity is a dedicated pool rather than shared system memory. The MI325X also has a higher boost clock at 2100 MHz versus 2000 MHz, a larger transistor count, a larger die, and a higher transistor density.

The Arc Graphics 24EU wins in graphics capability and integration. It is the only one with display outputs, motherboard-dependent as they are, and the only one with graphics API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X has no display outputs and no API support at all. The Arc Graphics 24EU also has a pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s with 6 ROPs, while the MI325X reports 0 MPixel/s and no ROPs. For any task requiring a rendered image on a screen, the Arc Graphics 24EU is the only functional option. The Arc part also has a lower TDP at 65 W versus 1000 W, a smaller die, and a 3 nm process node versus 5 nm.

The production status also differs: the Arc Graphics 24EU is listed as Active, while the MI325X has no production status recorded. The release dates are close, with the MI325X released on 2024-10-09 and the Arc Graphics 24EU on 2024-10-23. The MI325X has a predecessor of Radeon Instinct, and the Arc Graphics 24EU has a predecessor of HD Graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has FP32 throughput of 768.0 GFLOPS. The MI325X is substantially higher in this metric.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI325X support graphics APIs?

A: The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI325X. It has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor or run graphics API workloads.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Graphics 24EU uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory size, type, or bus width.

Q: How does the Arc Graphics 24EU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc Graphics 24EU has an average benchmark score of 733. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, both with an average score of 733 and a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4 percent lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which is 2.4 percent higher.

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

A: The MI325X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Arc Graphics 24EU has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The MI325X has a transistor density of 150.4M per mm², while the Arc Graphics 24EU has 73.3M per mm².

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The MI325X has a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Arc Graphics 24EU has a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The MI325X is 100 MHz higher in boost clock.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, wins for the MI325X are 0, and wins for the Arc Graphics 24EU are 0. The MI325X has no benchmark scores at all, and its average benchmark score is 0. The Arc Graphics 24EU has one recorded benchmark result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, which is also its average benchmark score.

The Arc Graphics 24EU is the only one of the two with a measured performance record in the database. Its percentile rank of 3 among all GPUs indicates that most other recorded GPUs score higher. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, each with an identical average score of 733 and a delta of 0 percent, meaning the 24EU configuration performs exactly on par with those higher EU-count variants in the recorded test. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails by 1.4 percent with a score of 723, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads by 2.4 percent with a score of 751. These narrow deltas show that the Arc Graphics 24EU sits in a tight cluster of low-end graphics parts in the database, with its performance essentially indistinguishable from the 32EU and 64EU versions in this single test.

The MI325X, by contrast, has no measured scores to place against any rival. Its percentile of 50 is the database median, but without a benchmark score attached, that percentile cannot be interpreted as a performance result. The absence of data means no head-to-head conclusions can be drawn between these two specific products. The comparison instead reduces to architectural and functional differences: the MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, 2,553.6 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 6.14 TB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Arc Graphics 24EU delivers 768.0 GFLOPS, 24.00 GTexel/s, and system-dependent bandwidth. The MI325X also has 19,456 shading units versus 192, and 1,216 TMUs versus 12. The Arc Graphics 24EU has 6 ROPs and a pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s, while the MI325X has no ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

The measured performance data, such as it is, belongs entirely to the Arc Graphics 24EU. The 733 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is the sole benchmark in the database for either product. The MI325X has no benchmark entries, no average score, and no rival list. The only quantitative performance statement the database supports is that the Arc Graphics 24EU scores 733 in that test, placing it at the 3rd percentile and within 2.4 percent of the GeForce GT 415M and 1.4 percent ahead of the Radeon HD 6470M. For the MI325X, the recorded data provides architectural specifications but no measured workload results. The wins in this comparison are therefore split by category: the MI325X wins on compute and memory specifications, and the Arc Graphics 24EU wins on graphics output, API support, and having any benchmark result at all.