AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Arc Pro B70 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI325X or the Intel Arc Pro B70. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and no head-to-head benchmark results. The percentile versus all GPUs field is 50 for both parts, indicating that the database places them at the median of the tracked GPU pool, but this is a default placement rather than a measured performance ranking. Without measured scores, a direct numerical comparison of compute performance cannot be established from the recorded data.

The absence of benchmark data does not mean the two accelerators are equivalent in capability. The raw compute specifications point to very different performance envelopes. The AMD Instinct MI325X lists a peak FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Pro B70 lists 22.94 TFLOPS. In FP16, the AMD part also lists 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Intel part lists 45.88 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD accelerator delivers roughly 3.56 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part based on these listed specifications, and roughly 1.78 times the FP16 throughput. These are specification-derived deltas, not measured benchmark deltas, but they represent the only quantitative performance indicators available in the database.

The memory subsystem further separates the two. The AMD Instinct MI325X carries 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, with a listed bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s. The Intel Arc Pro B70 carries 32 GB of GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus, with a listed bandwidth of 608.0 GB/s. The AMD part offers 8 times the memory capacity and roughly 10.1 times the memory bandwidth. This is a decisive advantage for workloads that stream large datasets through the memory hierarchy.

Texture and pixel throughput also differ substantially. The AMD part lists a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, with zero ROPs, which reflects its compute-oriented design without a traditional rasterization pipeline. The Intel part lists a texture rate of 716.8 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 358.4 GPixel/s, with 128 ROPs. The AMD accelerator has roughly 3.56 times the texture throughput, but the Intel part is the only one of the two with a functional pixel output stage.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 is the only one of the two with display outputs, listing 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The AMD Instinct MI325X lists no display outputs at all. The Intel part also lists API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part lists N/A for all three APIs. These differences indicate that the Intel part is designed to interface with graphics workloads and displays, while the AMD part is a pure compute accelerator.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X lists 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Pro B70 lists 22.94 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD part lists roughly 3.56 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X lists 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth from 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus. The Intel Arc Pro B70 lists 608.0 GB/s from 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The AMD part holds roughly a 10.1 times bandwidth advantage.

Q: Can either GPU output video to a display?

A: Only the Intel Arc Pro B70 has display outputs, listing 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The AMD Instinct MI325X lists no display outputs.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX and Vulkan?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B70 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The AMD Instinct MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the power requirements of each GPU?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X lists a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, with no power connectors specified. The Intel Arc Pro B70 lists a TDP of 230 W, a suggested PSU of 550 W, and uses a single 8-pin power connector.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X lists 19,456 shading units, while the Intel Arc Pro B70 lists 4,096 shading units. The AMD part has 4.75 times the shading unit count.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins decisively in raw compute density and memory capacity. Its listed FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, FP16 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, 256 GB of HBM3e, and 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth make it the stronger candidate for large-scale numerical workloads, model training, and any task that requires holding very large datasets in fast memory. The 8192-bit memory bus is the widest memory interface recorded in the database for either part, and the 256 GB capacity is 8 times the Intel part's 32 GB. The texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is 3.56 times the Intel part's 716.8 GTexel/s.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 wins in every category that involves traditional graphics pipeline functionality. It is the only part of the two with display outputs, listing 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. It is the only part with API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has 128 ROPs and a pixel rate of 358.4 GPixel/s, while the AMD part lists 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel part also has 32 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part lists no ray tracing cores. For any workload that needs to rasterize, display, or run graphics APIs, the Intel part is the only viable option from the recorded data.

The Intel part also wins on power efficiency based on the listed numbers. It delivers 22.94 TFLOPS FP32 within a 230 W TDP, while the AMD part delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 within a 1000 W TDP. The Intel part delivers roughly 0.10 TFLOPS per watt, and the AMD part delivers roughly 0.082 TFLOPS per watt. The Intel part also has a much lower suggested PSU of 550 W versus 1400 W, and fits in a dual-slot form factor with a single 8-pin connector, while the AMD part uses an OAM module form factor with no power connectors listed.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Intel Arc Pro B70 uses the BMG-G31 chip with Xe2-HPG architecture. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the AMD die is 1017 mm² with 153,000 million transistors, while the Intel die is 368 mm² with an unknown transistor count. The AMD part lists a transistor density of 150.4M per mm², while the Intel part lists no density figure.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The AMD part lists a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Intel part lists a base clock of 2280 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Intel part runs at higher clocks, but the AMD part compensates with a much larger shader array. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD part lists 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Intel part lists 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective.

The compute unit counts differ across all categories. The AMD part lists 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Intel part lists 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The AMD part lists no ray tracing cores, while the Intel part lists 32 ray tracing cores. Neither part lists tensor cores.

Memory configuration is completely different. The AMD part uses 256 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses 32 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 608.0 GB/s bandwidth. Power delivery differs: the AMD part lists a 1000 W TDP and a 1400 W suggested PSU with no power connectors, while the Intel part lists a 230 W TDP, a 550 W suggested PSU, and a single 8-pin connector. The AMD part is an OAM Module with no display outputs, while the Intel part is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm by 110 mm by 39 mm with 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Release dates differ by roughly 17 months. The AMD part has a release date of 2024-10-09, and the Intel part has a release date of 2026-03-25. The AMD part lists a predecessor of Radeon Instinct, while the Intel part lists no predecessor. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of 949 USD, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses CDNA 3.0 architecture, which is designed for compute acceleration without graphics output. The database records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support, and lists no display outputs. The architecture includes 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs but zero ROPs, which means the design has no rasterization stage. The FP16 ratio is 1:1 with FP32, indicating that the architecture does not double-rate half-precision work; it delivers the same throughput for both data types.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 uses Xe2-HPG architecture, which is a graphics-oriented design from the Battlemage Pro Series. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 128 ROPs for pixel output. The FP16 ratio is 2:1, meaning the architecture doubles half-precision throughput relative to FP32. The Intel part also includes 32 ray tracing cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely.

The memory architectures are also distinct. The AMD part uses HBM3e, a stacked memory technology, with an 8192-bit bus. The Intel part uses GDDR6, a discrete memory technology, with a 256-bit bus. The AMD part's memory is designed for maximum bandwidth in compute workloads, while the Intel part's memory is sized and configured for a graphics card. The AMD part has 8 times the capacity and roughly 10.1 times the bandwidth.

The physical form factors reflect the architectural intent. The AMD part is an OAM Module, a compute-oriented form factor with no display outputs and no power connectors listed. The Intel part is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector and a full set of display outputs, measuring 267 mm in length. The AMD part is built on a 1017 mm² die with 153,000 million transistors, while the Intel part is built on a 368 mm² die with an unknown transistor count. Both use a 5 nm TSMC process and a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

The Verdict

The data separates these two accelerators into distinct roles. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a compute-first accelerator with 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, 81.72 TFLOPS FP16, 256 GB of HBM3e, and 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no ROPs. It is designed for workloads that need maximum memory capacity and compute throughput without any graphics output requirement.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 is a graphics-capable accelerator with 22.94 TFLOPS FP32, 45.88 TFLOPS FP16, 32 GB of GDDR6, and 608.0 GB/s of bandwidth. It has display outputs, full graphics API support, 128 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. It is designed for workloads that need rasterization, ray tracing, and display output, with a 230 W TDP and a dual-slot form factor.

The choice between the two depends entirely on the workload. For large-scale compute tasks that do not require display output, the AMD part offers 3.56 times the FP32 throughput, 8 times the memory capacity, and roughly 10.1 times the memory bandwidth. For graphics workloads, rendering, or any task that requires DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan, or display output, the Intel part is the only option, as the AMD part lists N/A for all graphics APIs and has no display outputs.

The power envelope also favors the Intel part for deployment flexibility. The Intel part lists a 230 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU, while the AMD part lists a 1000 W TDP and a 1400 W suggested PSU. The Intel part uses a standard dual-slot card with a single 8-pin connector, while the AMD part uses an OAM Module. The Intel part also has a recorded launch MSRP of 949 USD, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded. Users with compute workloads that can accommodate the 1000 W TDP and OAM form factor should select the AMD part. Users with graphics or display workloads, or with power and form factor constraints, should select the Intel part.