AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI325X and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU occupy completely different segments of the hardware landscape. The MI325X is an accelerator-class compute module built for massive parallel workloads, while the Arc Graphics 64EU is an integrated graphics processor for mainstream desktop CPUs. The recorded data shows the MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against 1.946 TFLOPS for the Arc 64EU, a 42x difference in raw floating-point throughput. The MI325X also carries 256 GB of HBM3e memory with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, whereas the Arc 64EU relies on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

The Arc 64EU has one benchmark result in the database: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. This places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU, both scoring 733 with a 0 percent delta, and the AMD Radeon HD 6470M at 723 (1.4 percent behind). The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which is 2.4 percent ahead of the Arc 64EU. The MI325X has no recorded benchmarks and no nearest rivals in the database, so direct comparison of real-world test scores is impossible. The verdict from the data is clear: the MI325X is for server and datacenter compute, while the Arc 64EU is for basic integrated graphics duties. The Arc 64EU's performance class is demonstrated by its percentile ranking, which places it among the lowest-performing entries in the database.

Architecture Differences

The MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The chip integrates 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc 64EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Arrow Lake-S chip, built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a density of 73.3M per mm². The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units. The Arc 64EU has 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units. The MI325X has no ROPs, with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, while the Arc 64EU has 16 ROPs and a pixel rate of 30.40 GPixel/s.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The MI325X runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and boosts to 2100 MHz. The Arc 64EU has a 300 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e over an 8192-bit bus, achieving 6.14 TB/s bandwidth with memory clocked at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Arc 64EU uses system-shared memory, with no dedicated bus width or bandwidth figures; memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent. The MI325X consumes up to 1000 W TDP and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU, while the Arc 64EU has a 65 W TDP. The MI325X uses an OAM module form factor with no display outputs and no power connectors, while the Arc 64EU is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs.

API support is another split. The MI325X has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, reflecting its compute-oriented design. The Arc 64EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X uses PCIe 5.0 x16 as its bus interface; the Arc 64EU uses a Ring Bus. The MI325X was released on 2024-10-09, while the Arc 64EU followed on 2024-10-23. The MI325X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the Arc 64EU's predecessor is HD Graphics. The Arc 64EU has an active production status; the MI325X's status is not recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The MI325X wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS is 42 times the Arc 64EU's 1.946 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance is also 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Arc 64EU achieves 3.891 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. Texture rate favors the MI325X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 60.80 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is another categorical win: 6.14 TB/s versus system-dependent. The MI325X's 256 GB capacity dwarfs the Arc 64EU's shared memory pool, which has no fixed size in the database. The MI325X also has a wider memory bus at 8192 bit versus system shared.

The Arc 64EU wins in pixel processing, with 30.40 GPixel/s against 0 MPixel/s for the MI325X. It also has ROPs (16 versus 0), which means it can actually drive display output. The Arc 64EU's API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 makes it suitable for graphics workloads, whereas the MI325X has no graphics API support listed. Power efficiency also favors the Arc 64EU: 65 W TDP versus 1000 W, though the MI325X's power envelope is appropriate for its compute class. The Arc 64EU's only benchmark score, 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, shows it can complete graphics tests; the MI325X has no recorded benchmark scores.

The production status of the Arc 64EU is active, which indicates ongoing availability. The MI325X's production status is not recorded. The Arc 64EU uses a Ring Bus interface, which is typical for integrated graphics; the MI325X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, a standard for add-in accelerator modules.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Instinct MI325X compare to the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU in FP32 compute?

A: The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc 64EU delivers 1.946 TFLOPS. The MI325X is approximately 42 times higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc 64EU uses system-shared memory with no fixed size, bus width, or bandwidth; its memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The Arc 64EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Q: What is the performance percentile of the Arc 64EU in the database?

A: The Arc 64EU has a benchmark score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU (both 733, 0 percent delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M at 751, 2.4 percent ahead.

Q: What are the power requirements for each part?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Arc 64EU has a 65 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which part has display outputs?

A: The Arc 64EU has motherboard-dependent display outputs and can drive displays as an IGP. The MI325X has no display outputs and is not designed for graphics output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the MI325X and the Arc 64EU. The MI325X has zero recorded benchmark scores, so its average benchmark score is 0. The Arc 64EU has one recorded benchmark: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 733. This score places the Arc 64EU at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs in the database.

The nearest rivals for the Arc 64EU provide context for its performance. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU both score 733, identical to the Arc 64EU, with a 0 percent delta. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4 percent lower than the Arc 64EU. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which is 2.4 percent higher. These deltas show the Arc 64EU sits in a narrow performance band around 733 in this particular test.

For compute metrics, the MI325X's FP32 of 81.72 TFLOPS versus the Arc 64EU's 1.946 TFLOPS represents the largest measured gap in the recorded data. The texture rate difference is similarly large: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 60.80 GTexel/s. The pixel rate comparison is binary: the Arc 64EU achieves 30.40 GPixel/s while the MI325X records 0 MPixel/s. Memory bandwidth comparison cannot be quantified because the Arc 64EU's bandwidth is system dependent, but the MI325X's 6.14 TB/s is the only fixed figure in the database.

The FP16 comparison shows the MI325X at 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not gain extra throughput from reduced precision. The Arc 64EU reaches 3.891 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 rate. This difference in ratio indicates the MI325X is optimized for consistent FP32 and FP16 compute, while the Arc 64EU has a more graphics-oriented precision split.

Clock speeds show the MI325X has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc 64EU has a 300 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. The MI325X's higher base clock is 3.3 times the Arc 64EU's base. The boost clocks are closer, with the MI325X at 2100 MHz versus 1900 MHz. Transistor counts differ by an order of magnitude: 153,000 million for the MI325X versus 17,800 million for the Arc 64EU. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 243 mm². These architectural figures explain the compute gap but also show the Arc 64EU achieves its modest performance with far fewer resources.

The Arc 64EU's single benchmark result of 733 is the only recorded score for either part. The database shows no wins for either side in head-to-head comparisons, which is consistent with the absence of head-to-head benchmark entries. The MI325X's percentile of 50 with an average score of 0 reflects its lack of benchmark data, not its actual performance class. The Arc 64EU's percentile of 3 with an average score of 733 places it firmly at the low end of the performance distribution.