AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI325X versus the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. Neither product has any benchmark scores entered in the database, and both share an identical percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs. The average benchmark score for each is zero, meaning there is no empirical performance data to compare directly.

What the data does show is a massive theoretical compute gap between the two parts. The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS. That places the AMD accelerator roughly 34.7 times higher in raw FP32 throughput, a figure derived directly from the recorded data. For FP16, the AMD part again shows 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel part reaches 4.710 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, putting the AMD part about 17.3 times higher.

Texture throughput follows the same pattern. The AMD chip processes 2,553.6 GTexel/s, compared to 73.60 GTexel/s for the Intel chip, a difference of roughly 34.7 times. Pixel rate is a notable exception: the Intel part is listed at 36.80 GPixel/s, while the AMD part is listed at 0 MPixel/s. This reflects the AMD accelerator having zero ROPs, so it cannot generate traditional pixel output.

Clock speeds show a different side of the comparison. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The AMD part has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. Intel holds a 200 MHz advantage in boost frequency, while AMD holds a 700 MHz advantage in base frequency. These figures indicate that the Intel integrated GPU relies on higher boost clocks to extract performance from a much smaller silicon footprint.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has 19,456 shading units. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has 512 shading units. AMD leads by 18,944 shading units.

Q: How does memory capacity compare?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, so no fixed capacity or bandwidth figure is recorded.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W, and no suggested PSU is listed, consistent with it being an integrated processor graphics solution.

Q: Does the Intel chip support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its compute-accelerator positioning.

Q: What is the release timeline for these products?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X was released on 2024-10-09. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile was released on 2026-01-26.

Q: What form factors do these products use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X is an OAM Module with no display outputs and no power connectors on the card. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs and no power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from entirely different architectural lineages. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip called Aqua Vanjaram. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a chip called Panther Lake. These are not merely different performance tiers; they are different design philosophies aimed at different workloads.

The manufacturing processes differ as well. AMD builds the MI325X on a 5 nm TSMC process, with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². Intel builds the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile on a 3 nm Intel process. The transistor count and die size for the Intel chip are listed as unknown, so no density figure can be calculated from the recorded data.

The compute building blocks reflect the divergent purposes. The AMD accelerator has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and zero ROPs. It also has no listed RT cores or tensor cores. The Intel integrated GPU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 4 RT cores. AMD has no pixel rate because it has no ROPs, while Intel has a pixel rate of 36.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s for AMD versus 73.60 GTexel/s for Intel.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The AMD part uses 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, achieving 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent. The AMD memory clock is 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Intel memory clock is marked as System Shared.

API support separates them further. The Intel part is fully featured for graphics workloads, with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part lists N/A across all three, confirming that it is not designed for conventional graphics rendering APIs. It is a compute accelerator, not a display adapter.

The power envelope is the clearest evidence of the design gap. AMD specifies a 1000 W TDP with a 1400 W suggested PSU. Intel specifies a 25 W TDP. That is a 40x difference in thermal design power, directly matching the scale of the FP32 throughput difference. The AMD slot width is OAM Module, while the Intel slot width is IGP, and the AMD bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel bus interface is simply IGP.

The Verdict

The data describes two products with no overlapping use cases. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a 1000 W OAM compute accelerator with 256 GB of HBM3e, 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, and no display outputs. It targets workloads where massive memory bandwidth and raw FP32 throughput matter, and it requires a 1400 W power supply. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is a 25 W integrated GPU inside a Panther Lake processor, with 512 shading units, 4 RT cores, full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. It targets conventional graphics rendering in mobile systems.

The 81.72 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS FP32 gap, the 6.14 TB/s versus System Dependent bandwidth gap, and the 1000 W versus 25 W TDP gap all point in the same direction. Anyone selecting between these parts is not choosing between two competitors in the same market. They are choosing between a server-grade compute accelerator and an integrated mobile GPU. The AMD part has zero pixel rate and no graphics API support, so it cannot render a desktop. The Intel part has a pixel rate of 36.80 GPixel/s and supports modern graphics APIs, so it can handle display output and gaming workloads.

The fact that both products share the same 50th percentile ranking and zero benchmark scores means the database does not yet contain any measured performance data to rank them further. The verdict from the recorded specifications is straightforward: the AMD Instinct MI325X is for compute-heavy data center tasks, and the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is for integrated graphics in portable devices.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI325X | Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Xe3-LPG |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2300 MHz |

| Memory Size | 256 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 6.14 TB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz 6 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 512 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 32 |

| ROPs | 0 | 16 |

| RT Cores | null | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 36.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 73.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 2.355 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 25 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2026-01-26 |

| Production Status | null | Active |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins in every category that matters for compute acceleration. It has 19,456 shading units versus 512, a 38x advantage. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is roughly 34.7 times the Intel figure. Its FP32 throughput is 34.7 times higher, and its FP16 throughput, while running at a 1:1 ratio versus Intel's 2:1 ratio, is still 17.3 times higher. The 256 GB HBM3e pool with 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth dwarfs the System Shared memory of the Intel part. The PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface connects to a host system at high speed, while the Intel part has no external bus interface beyond IGP.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in every category that matters for integrated graphics. It has a pixel rate of 36.80 GPixel/s, while the AMD part has 0 MPixel/s. It has 16 ROPs, while AMD has zero. It has 4 RT cores, while AMD lists none. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while AMD lists N/A for all three. It has display outputs, albeit portable-device-dependent, while AMD has no outputs. Its boost clock of 2300 MHz is higher than the AMD boost clock of 2100 MHz. Its 25 W TDP allows it to operate in battery-powered devices, whereas the AMD part requires a 1400 W PSU.

The base clock comparison favors AMD at 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz, but that reflects the different design targets. A compute accelerator idles at a higher base clock to keep the massive shader array fed, while an integrated GPU with a 25 W budget starts low and boosts aggressively. The pixel rate comparison is the cleanest summary of the split: AMD cannot output pixels at all, and Intel is built specifically to do so. The verdict is clear from the specification differences, not from any benchmark results.