AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc Pro B50 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Instinct MI325X and Intel Arc Pro B50 occupy entirely different segments, and the recorded data confirms this before any detailed comparison. The MI325X has no benchmark entries in the database, while the Arc Pro B50 has eight recorded scores across DirectX and compute workloads. The MI325X carries a 50th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, while the Arc Pro B50 sits at the 17th percentile. The MI325X's average benchmark score is listed as 0, reflecting the absence of recorded measurements, whereas the Arc Pro B50 posts an average of 2660.

The Arc Pro B50's benchmark results show a clear pattern. Its strongest recorded score comes from PassMark G3D at 12553, which measures general 3D graphics performance. The GPU compute score of 6037 indicates roughly half the throughput of the G3D result, a typical ratio for a GPU where graphics-specific tests benefit from fixed-function hardware. The DirectX 11 score of 100 leads the API-specific tests, followed by DirectX 9 at 144 (normalized to a different scale), DirectX 10 at 58, and DirectX 12 at 64. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1604 provides a modern, heavier workload result. The G2D score of 717 reflects 2D desktop acceleration capabilities.

The nearest rivals for the Arc Pro B50 show how tightly clustered its average score is. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 posts an average score of 2662, a delta of -0.1% relative to the Arc Pro B50. The NVIDIA Quadro K1100M scores 2664, a -0.2% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 trails slightly at 2645, a 0.6% delta in favor of the Arc Pro B50. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER, despite its high-end positioning, records 2690, a -1.1% delta from the Arc Pro B50. These deltas indicate that the Arc Pro B50's overall average lands within one percentage point of all four rivals, meaning its aggregate performance is statistically indistinguishable from those parts in the database's scoring system.

The AMD MI325X cannot be compared through benchmark scores because none exist in the database. Its 50th percentile ranking suggests a mid-pack position relative to all GPUs, but with zero recorded scores, this percentile likely reflects its specification-driven classification rather than measured performance. The Arc Pro B50's 17th percentile places it below most GPUs in the database, consistent with its modest specification profile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use entirely different architectural designs. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, implemented as the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the Intel Arc Pro B50 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, built around the BMG-G21 chip. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge dramatically. The MI325X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Arc Pro B50 packs 19,600 million transistors into a 272 mm² die, with a density of 72.1M per mm². The MI325X's die is roughly 3.7 times larger, and its transistor count is about 7.8 times higher, while its density advantage is approximately 2.1 times.

Memory subsystems reflect the divergent purposes. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B50 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI325X's memory bandwidth is roughly 27 times higher, and its capacity is 16 times larger. The MI325X's memory clock runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Arc Pro B50's memory runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective. The Arc Pro B50's higher per-pin data rate cannot compensate for the vastly wider bus on the MI325X.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The MI325X has 19456 shading units, 1216 TMUs, and no ROPs, yielding a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Arc Pro B50 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores, with a texture rate of 332.8 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s. The MI325X's shading unit count is 9.5 times higher, and its texture rate is about 7.7 times higher. The MI325X has no ROPs because its architecture targets compute workloads where pixel output is irrelevant. The Arc Pro B50's 16 ROPs enable rasterization output, and its 16 ray tracing cores support hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads.

Clock speeds reveal different design priorities. The MI325X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The Arc Pro B50 runs at a 1700 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost. The Arc Pro B50's base clock is 70% higher, and its boost clock is about 24% higher. Despite this clock advantage, the MI325X's raw throughput dominates due to its massive shader count. FP32 compute on the MI325X reaches 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Arc Pro B50 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS, a 7.7-fold difference. FP16 performance shows a different ratio: the MI325X achieves 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Arc Pro B50 achieves 21.30 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes half-precision at double the rate of single-precision.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two GPUs built for different jobs. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no API support listed (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all marked N/A), and a 1000 W TDP. The Intel Arc Pro B50 is a workstation graphics card with four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and a 70 W TDP. The MI325X uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors, while the Arc Pro B50 is a Dual-slot card measuring 167 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

Performance expectations follow from the specifications. The MI325X's FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS versus the Arc Pro B50's 10.65 TFLOPS indicates a 7.7-fold advantage in raw compute. The MI325X's 6.14 TB/s bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s indicates a 27-fold advantage in memory throughput. The MI325X's 256 GB capacity versus 16 GB indicates a 16-fold advantage in memory size. These gaps reflect the MI325X's positioning as a data-center accelerator for large-scale compute workloads.

The Arc Pro B50's benchmark scores place it near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030, Quadro K1100M, and GT 440, with deltas within one percentage point. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1604 and PassMark G3D score of 12553 indicate capable modern 3D rendering for its class. The MI325X has no recorded benchmarks, so its actual measured performance cannot be stated from the database. The percentile ranking of 50 versus 17 suggests the MI325X sits higher in the overall GPU distribution, but this must be read cautiously given the absence of benchmark data.

FAQ

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B50 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 has 16 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no listed ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Pro B50 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP32. The MI325X is approximately 7.7 times higher.

Q: What display outputs does each GPU provide?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has no display outputs. The Intel Arc Pro B50 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: How does the Arc Pro B50 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc Pro B50's average benchmark score of 2660 is within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 (2645), within 0.1% of the GeForce GT 1030 (2662), and within 0.2% of the Quadro K1100M (2664). It trails the GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER (2690) by 1.1%.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has a 1000 W TDP and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. The Intel Arc Pro B50 has a 70 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS and FP16 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio indicate balanced compute capability for workloads that do not benefit from reduced precision. The 256 GB HBM3e memory with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth supports datasets far larger than the Arc Pro B50's 16 GB GDDR6 with 224.0 GB/s. The 8192-bit bus width provides a memory interface that the Arc Pro B50's 128-bit bus cannot approach. The MI325X's 19456 shading units and 1216 TMUs process geometry and texture workloads at rates (2,553.6 GTexel/s) that dwarf the Arc Pro B50's 128 TMUs and 332.8 GTexel/s.

The Intel Arc Pro B50 wins in workstation graphics features. It provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, enabling multi-monitor setups. Its API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with modern graphics software stacks. The MI325X lists N/A for all three APIs. The Arc Pro B50's 16 ROPs and 41.60 GPixel/s pixel rate enable rasterization output, while the MI325X has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The Arc Pro B50's 16 ray tracing cores add hardware acceleration for ray-traced workloads. Its 70 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU make it suitable for systems with modest power budgets, and its physical dimensions (167 mm length, 69 mm height, 40 mm width) fit standard desktop layouts. The MI325X's 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU require enterprise-level power delivery.

The Arc Pro B50 also wins on clock speed. Its 1700 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost clocks exceed the MI325X's 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. Its FP16 performance of 21.30 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio shows efficient half-precision execution relative to its FP32 rate, whereas the MI325X runs FP16 at the same rate as FP32. The Arc Pro B50's benchmark scores, while modest, are recorded and verifiable: 1604 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 12553 in PassMark G3D, and 6037 in PassMark GPU Compute. The MI325X has no benchmark entries, so no measured performance data exists for it.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the Intel Arc Pro B50 uses Xe2-HPG with the BMG-G21 chip. Both use a 5 nm TSMC process, but the MI325X integrates 153,000 million transistors versus 19,600 million, and its die measures 1017 mm² versus 272 mm². Transistor density stands at 150.4M per mm² for the MI325X and 72.1M per mm² for the Arc Pro B50.

Clock speeds: the MI325X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Arc Pro B50 runs at 1700 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost. Memory: the MI325X uses 256 GB HBM3e at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, while the Arc Pro B50 uses 16 GB GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: the MI325X has 19456 shading units, 1216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, producing 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The Arc Pro B50 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores, producing 332.8 GTexel/s texture rate and 41.60 GPixel/s pixel rate. FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI325X and 10.65 TFLOPS for the Arc Pro B50. FP16 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS at 1:1 for the MI325X and 21.30 TFLOPS at 2:1 for the Arc Pro B50.

Power and physical specifications: the MI325X has a 1000 W TDP, OAM Module slot width, no power connectors, and a 1400 W suggested PSU. The Arc Pro B50 has a 70 W TDP, Dual-slot width, no power connectors, a 250 W suggested PSU, and dimensions of 167 mm by 69 mm by 40 mm. Bus interfaces: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X and PCIe 5.0 x8 for the Arc Pro B50. Display outputs: none for the MI325X, 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 for the Arc Pro B50. API support: all N/A for the MI325X, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for the Arc Pro B50. Release dates: the MI325X launched on 2024-10-09, the Arc Pro B50 on 2025-09-04. The Arc Pro B50 carries a launch MSRP of 349 USD. The MI325X has no launch MSRP listed. The Arc Pro B50's production status is Active; the MI325X's is not listed.