AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

AMD Instinct MI325X and Intel Arc Pro B370 occupy opposite corners of the GPU market, and the recorded specifications confirm this. The MI325X is a 1000 W OAM module built for compute arrays, while the B370 is a 25 W integrated graphics processor for mobile or compact systems. Their benchmark entries are empty, so this analysis relies entirely on the physical and architectural data in the database to project what each part can do. The MI325X offers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 6.14 TB/s of memory bandwidth, while the B370 offers 6.144 TFLOPS and system-dependent memory. The data indicates no overlap in intended use, yet the comparison reveals how far the two designs diverge.

Where Each One Wins

The MI325X wins every scenario that demands raw compute throughput, massive memory capacity, or high-bandwidth data movement. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 rate is 13.3 times the B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. Its 256 GB of HBM3e memory with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the B370's system-shared memory, whose bandwidth is listed as system dependent. Texture rate also favors the MI325X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s, a 26.6 ratio. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and no ROPs (listed as 0 MPixel/s pixel rate), which means it is not designed for rasterization output at all. Its 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU confirm it belongs in a server chassis with dedicated power delivery. The MI325X also has no display outputs and no graphics API support (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all listed as N/A), so it cannot function as a conventional graphics card.

The B370 wins in areas tied to integration, efficiency, and graphics output. Its 25 W TDP is 40 times lower than the MI325X's 1000 W TDP. It is an IGP, meaning it is embedded into a processor package and requires no discrete power connectors, whereas the MI325X is an OAM module with no power connectors of its own but an external 1400 W PSU suggestion. The B370 has 20 ROPs and a 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, which means it can drive display output, while the MI325X has no pixel output capability. The B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a functional graphics solution for applications and games. Its FP16 throughput is 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, which is double its FP32 rate, indicating a design that accelerates half-precision workloads when needed. The B370 also has 10 ray tracing cores, which the MI325X lacks entirely.

The wins are not close. The MI325X dominates in compute and memory, the B370 dominates in power efficiency, display output, and API compatibility. The data shows no scenario where the B370 matches the MI325X in raw throughput, and no scenario where the MI325X can replace the B370 in a graphics role.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, which is 13.3 times the Intel Arc Pro B370's 6.144 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The B370 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM.

Q: Can either GPU output video to a display?

A: No. The MI325X has no display outputs. The B370's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning it can drive a display in supported systems, but the database does not specify a fixed set of ports.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The B370 has a 25 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed, consistent with an integrated processor.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the Intel Arc Pro B370 has ray tracing cores, with 10 RT cores listed. The MI325X has no RT cores.

Q: What graphics APIs are supported?

A: The B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, so it has no graphics API support in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark entries exist for this pair, so the comparison must be drawn from the recorded specification metrics. The largest win for the MI325X is in memory bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s versus system dependent for the B370. The database does not assign a number to the B370's bandwidth, which means the MI325X's advantage is effectively unbounded in the records. The second largest gap is in FP32 throughput: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS, a 13.3x difference. Texture rate shows a 26.6x gap, with 2,553.6 GTexel/s against 96.00 GTexel/s. Shading unit count is 19,456 versus 1,280, a 15.2x difference. TMU count is 1,216 versus 40, a 30.4x difference.

The B370's wins are smaller in absolute terms but clear in direction. Pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s for the MI325X, so the B370 is the only one of the two that can produce rasterized pixels. FP16 throughput on the B370 is 12.29 TFLOPS, which is higher than its own FP32 rate but still far below the MI325X's 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 (listed at 1:1). Clock speeds show the B370 boosting to 2400 MHz against the MI325X's 2100 MHz boost, so the B370 has a 300 MHz higher boost clock. Base clocks are reversed: the MI325X runs at 1000 MHz, the B370 at 300 MHz. The B370 also has a smaller process node at 3 nm versus 5 nm, and its TDP is 40 times lower.

The MI325X's wins are all in the compute and memory domain, where its massive die and HBM3e stack provide order-of-magnitude advantages. The B370's wins are in integration and graphics output, where its low power envelope and ROP/API support make it viable as a processor-embedded GPU. The data does not suggest any benchmark where these two would be compared on equal footing; the MI325X is a compute accelerator, and the B370 is a graphics core.

Specification Differences

The two differ in nearly every recorded field. Process node: 5 nm for the MI325X, 3 nm for the B370. Foundry: TSMC for the MI325X, Intel for the B370. Transistor count: 153,000 million for the MI325X, unknown for the B370. Die size: 1017 mm² for the MI325X, unknown for the B370. Transistor density: 150.4M per mm² for the MI325X, not listed for the B370. Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz. Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 2400 MHz. Memory clock: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the MI325X, system shared for the B370.

Memory size: 256 GB HBM3e versus system shared. Memory bus: 8192 bit versus system shared. Memory bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s versus system dependent. Shading units: 19,456 versus 1,280. TMUs: 1,216 versus 40. ROPs: 0 versus 20. RT cores: none versus 10. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 1000 W versus 25 W. Slot width: OAM module versus IGP. Power connectors: none for both, but the MI325X has a 1400 W suggested PSU while the B370 has none listed. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus IGP. Display outputs: no outputs versus portable device dependent. DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6. Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4. Release date: 2024-10-09 versus 2026-01-26. Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus HD Graphics-WM. Production status: not listed for the MI325X, active for the B370.

Architecture Differences

The MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. It is a compute-oriented design with no graphics API support and no display path. Its 153,000 million transistors are packed into a 1017 mm² die at 5 nm, giving a density of 150.4M transistors per mm². The memory subsystem is HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, providing 6.14 TB/s. The FP16 rate equals the FP32 rate at 1:1, indicating a balanced float throughput that favors general compute over mixed-precision acceleration.

The B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Panther Lake chip, part of the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. It is built on Intel's 3 nm process, with transistor count and die size unknown. The memory is system shared, meaning it relies on the host's RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The FP16 rate is double the FP32 rate at 2:1, suggesting a design that can boost half-precision throughput. It includes 10 ray tracing cores and full graphics API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B370 is an IGP, so it is integrated into a processor and has no separate bus interface beyond IGP.

The architectural split is clear: CDNA 3.0 is built for data-center compute with no graphics features, while Xe3-LPG is built for graphics and media acceleration inside a low-power processor. The MI325X's OAM form factor and 1000 W TDP place it in a server rack with liquid or forced-air cooling and a 1400 W power supply. The B370's 25 W TDP and IGP form factor place it in a laptop or compact desktop where power draw is critical. The MI325X has no ROPs and no pixel rate, confirming it cannot rasterize. The B370 has 20 ROPs and a 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, confirming it can.

The Verdict

The database shows two products with no functional overlap. The AMD Instinct MI325X is for compute workloads that need massive FP32 throughput, 256 GB of HBM3e, and 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth, at the cost of 1000 W TDP and no display output. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is for systems that need an integrated GPU with ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a 25 W power draw, with performance limited to 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and system-shared memory.

Anyone selecting between these must choose based on the workload. The MI325X is the only option for high-bandwidth compute arrays, AI training, or simulation tasks that can use its 81.72 TFLOPS and 256 GB memory. The B370 is the only option for a portable or low-power device that requires graphics output, API compatibility, and ray tracing. The MI325X cannot display an image, and the B370 cannot approach the MI325X's throughput. The recorded data supports no other conclusion.