AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc Pro B60 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark runs for the AMD Instinct MI325X versus the Intel Arc Pro B60. The head-to-head comparison field is empty, with zero wins recorded for either side. This absence of direct measurement data shapes how the two accelerators can be assessed.

For the Intel Arc Pro B60, the database does include standalone benchmark scores. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result stands at 2646 points. PassMark testing shows a G3D score of 14580, a GPU compute score of 7029, and a G2D score of 763. DirectX-specific PassMark scores are 179 for DX9, 122 for DX11, 76 for DX12, and 61 for DX10. These figures place the Arc Pro B60 at the 20th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 3182.

The nearest rivals for the Arc Pro B60 provide useful context. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 3163, putting the Intel part 0.6% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 scores 3210, meaning the Arc Pro B60 trails by 0.9%. The NVIDIA GeForce 920M scores 3287, a 3.2% deficit. Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER scores 3075, and the Arc Pro B60 leads it by 3.5%. These are modest margins in every direction, indicating the Arc Pro B60 sits in a tightly clustered performance band among its nearest database rivals.

The AMD Instinct MI325X has no benchmark scores recorded at all. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile versus all GPUs is listed at 50. This percentile figure appears to be a default or placeholder value rather than a measured outcome, as the benchmark array is empty. Consequently, there are no exact numerical comparisons to draw between the two cards from direct testing. The data instead supports a qualitative assessment based on architectural specifications and the Arc Pro B60's measured performance profile.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the Intel Arc Pro B60 is a functioning, actively produced graphics card with measurable benchmark results across multiple test suites. Its average benchmark score of 3182 places it in the 20th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The nearest rival comparisons show it performing within roughly 3.5% of several NVIDIA cards, both older and newer, which suggests a consistent mid-range positioning.

The AMD Instinct MI325X, by contrast, shows no benchmark results and no measured percentile standing. The database records a 50th percentile figure, but with zero benchmark scores behind it, this cannot be interpreted as a meaningful performance ranking. The MI325X appears in the database as a specification-only entry.

From the data alone, the Arc Pro B60 is the only one of the two with demonstrated test outcomes. Any user requiring benchmark-verified performance data would find it only for the Intel card. The MI325X's specification sheet describes an accelerator with dramatically larger compute resources, but the database provides no measurement confirming how those specifications translate into actual test scores. The verdict, strictly from recorded data, is that the Arc Pro B60 has verified performance results while the MI325X does not, and no direct comparison can be made with the available information.

Architecture Differences

The two cards diverge sharply at the architectural level. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, produced by TSMC on a 5 nm process. It contains 153,000 million transistors on a die size of 1017 mm², yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Pro B60 uses the BMG-G21 chip based on Xe2-HPG architecture, also fabricated by TSMC on 5 nm. It packs 19,600 million transistors into a 272 mm² die, giving a density of 72.1 million per square millimeter. The MI325X's die is roughly 3.7 times larger in area and holds nearly 8 times as many transistors.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no raster operation pipelines (0 ROPs). Its texture rate is listed at 2,553.6 GTexel/s, with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Arc Pro B60 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. It also includes 20 ray tracing cores. Its texture rate is 384.0 GTexel/s and its pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s.

Floating-point performance shows a wide gap. The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, with a 1:1 ratio. The Arc Pro B60 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS in FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS in FP16, reflecting a 2:1 ratio. The MI325X's FP32 output is approximately 6.6 times higher than the Intel card's, while its FP16 output is about 3.3 times higher.

Memory architecture is completely different. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. Memory clock is listed at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed. The Arc Pro B60 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 456.0 GB/s. Its memory clock is 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective speed. The MI325X offers over 10 times the memory capacity and roughly 13.5 times the bandwidth.

Clock speeds also differ. The MI325X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The Arc Pro B60 runs at 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, meaning the Intel card has higher clock frequencies despite its smaller compute footprint.

Power and physical configuration diverge substantially. The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP, uses an OAM Module slot width, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 1400 W power supply. It offers no display outputs and uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The Arc Pro B60 has a 200 W TDP, uses a Dual-slot form factor, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 550 W power supply. It provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and uses a PCIe 5.0 x8 interface. Its dimensions are 167 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

API support differs completely. The MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Arc Pro B60 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has 19,456 shading units, while the Intel Arc Pro B60 has 2,560 shading units.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory, whereas the Arc Pro B60 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory. The MI325X also has a much wider 8192-bit bus compared to the Arc Pro B60's 192-bit bus.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B60 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc Pro B60 includes 20 ray tracing cores. The AMD MI325X lists no ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP and suggests a 1400 W power supply. The Arc Pro B60 has a 200 W TDP and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Q: Which card supports display outputs?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The AMD MI325X has no display outputs.

Q: What benchmark scores are recorded for the AMD MI325X?

A: The database records no benchmark scores for the MI325X. Its average benchmark score is 0. The Intel Arc Pro B60 has an average benchmark score of 3182 across its recorded tests.

Where Each One Wins

From the recorded data, the Intel Arc Pro B60 wins in every category where measurement exists. It has benchmark scores across 3DMark and PassMark suites, a verified production status, and an active release date of 2025-09-04. Its 20th percentile ranking, while modest, is backed by actual test results. The card also wins on physical practicality: a 200 W TDP, dual-slot design, single 8-pin connector, and 550 W suggested power supply make it integrable into conventional workstation builds. It offers display outputs, API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it fits in a 167 mm length. The Arc Pro B60 also has a higher base clock (2000 MHz vs 1000 MHz) and higher boost clock (2400 MHz vs 2100 MHz).

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins on raw specification sheet comparisons. It has 19,456 shading units versus 2,560, 1,216 TMUs versus 160, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 versus 12.29 TFLOPS. Its 256 GB HBM3e memory with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the Arc Pro B60's 24 GB GDDR6 with 456.0 GB/s. The MI325X also has a much larger transistor count (153,000 million vs 19,600 million) and a larger die (1017 mm² vs 272 mm²). It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface versus the Arc Pro B60's x8. None of these advantages are validated by benchmark scores in the database, however.

The practical split is clear: the Arc Pro B60 wins in all measured performance and usability categories, while the MI325X wins only in unverified architectural specifications. For applications requiring graphics output, API compatibility, or standard workstation integration, the Arc Pro B60 is the only option with supporting data. For compute workloads that might leverage the MI325X's massive memory bandwidth and FP32 throughput, the database provides no confirmation of actual performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Arc Pro B60 uses the BMG-G21 chip with Xe2-HPG architecture. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 19,600 million. Die sizes are 1017 mm² versus 272 mm². Transistor densities are 150.4M per mm² versus 72.1M per mm².

Base clocks are 1000 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Boost clocks are 2100 MHz versus 2400 MHz. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). Memory sizes are 256 GB versus 24 GB. Memory types are HBM3e versus GDDR6. Bus widths are 8192-bit versus 192-bit. Memory bandwidths are 6.14 TB/s versus 456.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 19,456 versus 2,560. TMUs are 1,216 versus 160. ROPs are 0 versus 80. Ray tracing cores are absent on the MI325X and present at 20 on the Arc Pro B60. Pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDPs are 1000 W versus 200 W. Slot widths are OAM Module versus Dual-slot. Power connectors are None versus 1x 8-pin. Suggested power supplies are 1400 W versus 550 W. Bus interfaces are PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x8. Display outputs are none versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. DirectX support is N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL is N/A versus 4.6. Vulkan is N/A versus 1.4.

Release dates are 2024-10-09 for the MI325X and 2025-09-04 for the Arc Pro B60. Production status is unlisted for the MI325X and Active for the Arc Pro B60. The MI325X lists a predecessor of Radeon Instinct, while the Arc Pro B60 has no predecessor listed. The Arc Pro B60 has a launch MSRP of 499 USD, while the MI325X has no launch MSRP recorded. The MI325X has no dimensions listed, while the Arc Pro B60 measures 167 mm by 69 mm by 40 mm.