AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc Graphics 32EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU. The headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty, and the AMD Instinct MI325X has no recorded benchmark scores, no average benchmark score, and no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile rank sits at 50, which places it in the middle of all GPUs tracked by the database, but this ranking is derived from its specifications rather than from any measured workload performance.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, by contrast, has a single recorded benchmark result. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 733. This places the Intel part at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning that 97% of recorded parts score higher. Its nearest rivals in the database are telling: the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU scores 733, a 0% difference, and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU also scores 733, again a 0% difference. This indicates that within the Arc Graphics family, the 32EU configuration does not separate itself from its smaller or larger sibling in this specific test. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which puts the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU 1.4% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, placing the Intel part 2.4% behind that rival.

Because the AMD Instinct MI325X has no benchmark entries, any numerical comparison between these two parts is impossible from the recorded data. The only cross-part comparisons available are those within the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU's own rival list, and those comparisons all involve other Intel Arc variants or older mobile discrete GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two products occupy entirely different positions in the hardware landscape. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a data-center accelerator built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, using the Aqua Vanjaram chip. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is an integrated graphics processor within the Arrow Lake-S chip, using the Xe-LPG architecture. It is built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, giving a density of 73.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel die is far smaller and packs far fewer transistors, but the 3 nm node gives it a higher density per area than the AMD part's 5 nm node, even though the AMD chip's overall transistor count is more than eight times larger.

The compute resources differ by orders of magnitude. The AMD Instinct MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, and its texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 15.60 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 31.20 GTexel/s. The AMD part's FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is also 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part delivers 998.4 GFLOPS of FP32 and 1.997 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The AMD accelerator's FP32 output is roughly 82 times higher than the Intel integrated part's FP32 figure.

Memory is another fundamental split. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, with 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is 1500 MHz, listed as 6 Gbps effective. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has no dedicated memory; it uses System Shared memory, with a System Shared bus width, System Shared type, and bandwidth described as System Dependent. The base clock of the AMD part is 1000 MHz, with a boost of 2100 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 1950 MHz.

Power and physical design also diverge sharply. The AMD Instinct MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W, uses an OAM Module slot width, has no power connectors listed, and requires a suggested PSU of 1400 W. It has no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan; all three are listed as N/A. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has a TDP of 65 W, is an IGP, uses a Ring Bus interface, and has display outputs described as Motherboard Dependent. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part is listed as Active in production status, while the AMD part has no production status recorded. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface; the Intel part uses the Ring Bus within the Arrow Lake-S package.

The release dates are close. The AMD Instinct MI325X was released on 2024-10-09, and the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU followed on 2024-10-23. The AMD part's predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M. Neither has a successor listed, and neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data shows two products that cannot be compared on equal terms. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a 1000 W accelerator with 256 GB of HBM3e memory, 19,456 shading units, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. It has no display outputs, no consumer API support, and no benchmark scores in the database. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is a 65 W integrated GPU with 256 shading units, shared system memory, and a single recorded benchmark score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12.

From the recorded data, the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU at least has a measurable performance point: it sits at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs, is 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6470M, and 2.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no measured performance data, so no statement about its actual workload behavior can be made from the benchmark database.

For any task requiring the AMD part's specifications, the Intel integrated GPU is not a relevant comparison. The AMD accelerator's memory bandwidth alone, 6.14 TB/s, exceeds the entire memory subsystem of the Intel part by definition, since the Intel part relies on System Dependent shared memory. The compute rates differ by roughly two orders of magnitude. Conversely, for any task requiring graphics output, the AMD part cannot function at all, as it has no display outputs and no API support. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its display outputs are Motherboard Dependent.

The verdict from the database is straightforward: these parts serve different purposes, and the recorded data does not allow a direct performance ranking. The Intel part has a benchmark score and a percentile; the AMD part has neither.

FAQ

Q: What is the AMD Instinct MI325X's benchmark score?

A: The database lists no benchmark scores for the AMD Instinct MI325X. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile rank is 50.

Q: What is the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU's benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU scores 733 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. That is its only recorded benchmark, and it places the part at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU both score 733, a 0% difference. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which puts the Intel part 1.4% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which puts the Intel part 2.4% behind.

Q: Which part has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has 19,456 shading units. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has 256 shading units.

Q: What memory does each part use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses System Shared memory with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI325X support graphics APIs?

A: No. DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all listed as N/A for the AMD Instinct MI325X, and it has no display outputs. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

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 32EU has a TDP of 65 W.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins in every category where raw compute and memory capacity are the deciding factors. Its 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput is recorded against the Intel part's 998.4 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s dwarfs the Intel part's 31.20 GTexel/s. Its 256 GB of HBM3e with 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth has no counterpart on the Intel side, which uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. The AMD part's 1,216 TMUs compare to 16 on the Intel part, and its 19,456 shading units compare to 256. The AMD accelerator also has a higher boost clock at 2100 MHz versus 1950 MHz, and a higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU wins in every category where a GPU must interact with a display or run graphics APIs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part lists all three as N/A. The Intel part has 8 ROPs and a pixel rate of 15.60 GPixel/s, while the AMD part has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel part has display outputs, described as Motherboard Dependent, while the AMD part has no outputs. The Intel part is also the only one of the two with a measured benchmark result: its 733 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which places it ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6470M by 1.4% and behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M by 2.4%.

The Intel part's power envelope is dramatically lower at 65 W, against the AMD part's 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU. The Intel part is also an IGP, meaning it requires no separate power connectors, whereas the AMD part uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors listed. The Intel part is in Active production status, while the AMD part has no production status recorded.

In terms of the database's percentile ranks, the AMD Instinct MI325X sits at the 50th percentile with no benchmark data, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU sits at the 3rd percentile with one benchmark score. The AMD part's percentile is based on its listed specifications, not on measured performance. The Intel part's percentile is based on an actual recorded test result. Neither part shows a win in the head-to-head benchmark field, as that field is empty. The recorded data supports a clear division: the AMD part is built for compute and memory throughput, and the Intel part is built for integrated graphics output and API compatibility.