AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI325X versus the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100. Both entries have empty benchmark arrays, zero recorded benchmark scores, and zero wins attributed to either side. The absence of measured data means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification fields recorded in the database.

The raw compute figures tell a clear story. The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 operations, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS for the same precision formats. That places AMD at roughly 3.7 times the raw floating-point throughput of Intel, a substantial margin that would dominate any compute-bound workload if real benchmark scores existed.

Texture rate follows the same pattern. The MI325X records 2,553.6 GTexel/s, against 694.4 GTexel/s for the Max 1100. Again, AMD holds a lead of approximately 3.7 times. Both cards show a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, indicating neither is designed for traditional rasterization output, which aligns with their server-oriented configurations.

Memory bandwidth widens the gap further. The MI325X lists 6.14 TB/s from 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus. The Max 1100 lists 1.23 TB/s from 48 GB of HBM2e, also on an 8192-bit bus. The bandwidth difference is exactly 5.0 times in favor of AMD, while the capacity difference is 5.33 times. The bus width being identical at 8192 bits makes the comparison particularly clean: the MI325X achieves its higher bandwidth through a newer memory type and a much faster memory clock (1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective versus 600 MHz, 1200 Mbps effective).

Clock speeds provide a partial counterpoint. Both cards share a 1000 MHz base clock. The boost clock differs, with AMD reaching 2100 MHz and Intel reaching 1550 MHz. That 550 MHz boost advantage contributes to AMD's compute lead, though the larger shader count does most of the work.

The shader core counts are decisive. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units. The Max 1100 has 7,168 shading units and 448 TMUs. AMD's shading unit count is approximately 2.7 times higher, and its TMU count is approximately 2.7 times higher as well. The Intel part does list 56 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD entry, which records null for RT cores. That distinction matters only for workloads that use ray tracing, which is rare in the data center segment.

Transistor and die measurements reveal different design philosophies. AMD's chip, Aqua Vanjaram, uses a 5 nm process from TSMC and packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, for a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². Intel's Ponte Vecchio uses a 10 nm process from Intel and fits 100,000 million transistors into a 1280 mm² die, for a density of 78.1M per mm². AMD achieves 1.53 times the transistor count on a smaller die, thanks to the denser process node. Intel's die is 263 mm² larger despite holding fewer transistors.

Power draw diverges sharply. The MI325X records a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Max 1100 records a TDP of 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W. The MI325X consumes 3.33 times the power of the Max 1100. That power ratio is close to the compute ratio of 3.7 times, suggesting the efficiency per watt is broadly similar between the two, though the database does not include a direct efficiency metric.

Form factor and cooling approach differ as well. The MI325X is an OAM module with no power connectors listed and no display outputs. The Max 1100 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, using a single 12-pin power connector, also with no display outputs. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, so host connectivity matches.

The release dates place these products in different generations. Intel's Max 1100 was released on 2023-01-09 and has a successor listed as H3C Graphics. AMD's MI325X was released on 2024-10-09 and lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct. The production status for the MI325X is not recorded, while the Max 1100 is marked as Active.

The Verdict

The data shows two accelerators aimed at different points in the data center spectrum. The AMD Instinct MI325X holds commanding leads in every compute and memory metric: 3.7 times the FP32/FP16 throughput, 5.0 times the memory bandwidth, 5.33 times the memory capacity, and 2.7 times the shader count. It also boosts to 2100 MHz versus 1550 MHz. Any workload that scales with raw floating-point throughput or memory bandwidth would favor the MI325X by a wide margin.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 counters with a 300 W TDP against 1000 W, a 700 W suggested PSU against 1400 W, and a dual-slot form factor against an OAM module. It also carries 56 ray tracing cores, a feature the AMD entry does not list. For deployments constrained by per-slot power budgets, rack density, or existing PCIe card infrastructure, the Max 1100 fits where the MI325X cannot.

Neither card has benchmark scores in the database, so the percentile fields are identical at 50 for both. That neutral percentile reinforces that the comparison must be read through specifications alone. The average benchmark score for both is 0, confirming no measured performance data has been recorded for either product.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the MI325X is the higher-performance accelerator in absolute terms, while the Max 1100 is the lower-power, more conventionally packaged option. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload requires maximum compute and memory throughput or whether power and physical integration constraints take priority.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins in every category where the database records a quantitative performance metric. FP32 and FP16 compute both sit at 81.72 TFLOPS, which is 3.7 times the 22.22 TFLOPS of the Max 1100. Texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is 3.7 times the 694.4 GTexel/s of the Intel part. Memory bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s is 5.0 times the 1.23 TB/s of the Max 1100. Memory capacity of 256 GB is 5.33 times the 48 GB of the Intel card. The boost clock of 2100 MHz is 550 MHz higher. The transistor count of 153,000 million is 1.53 times the 100,000 million of Intel, and the transistor density of 150.4M per mm² is 1.93 times the 78.1M per mm² of Intel.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins in power efficiency as recorded. Its 300 W TDP is 700 W lower than the MI325X. Its suggested PSU of 700 W is half the 1400 W required for AMD. It is a dual-slot PCIe card at 267 mm length, while the MI325X is an OAM module with no slot form factor. The Intel part also has 56 ray tracing cores, which the AMD entry does not list at all. The Max 1100 uses a single 12-pin power connector, while the MI325X lists no power connectors, implying an OAM-based power delivery system.

The memory clock comparison favors Intel in one narrow sense: its memory runs at 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective, while AMD runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. That is not a win for Intel, but it shows the Max 1100 uses slower HBM2e while still achieving a respectable 1.23 TB/s on the same 8192-bit bus. The efficiency of the Intel memory subsystem per MHz is higher because the bus width is identical, but the absolute bandwidth is far lower.

The API support fields also split the two. The Max 1100 lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. For any software stack that relies on these graphics APIs, the Intel card has recorded support and the AMD card does not. That could matter for legacy or mixed workloads, though data center accelerators typically run compute frameworks rather than graphics APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, which is 3.7 times the 22.22 TFLOPS of the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e, while the Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e. That gives AMD 5.33 times the memory capacity. Both use an 8192-bit memory bus.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The MI325X records a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Max 1100 records a TDP of 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W. Intel requires 700 W less for the card and 700 W less for the PSU recommendation.

Q: Does the Intel card support any graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The Max 1100 lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support. The MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: Are there any measured benchmark scores for either card?

A: No. Both cards have empty benchmark arrays, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile of 50 against all GPUs in the database.

Q: What process nodes do the two chips use?

A: The AMD chip, Aqua Vanjaram, uses TSMC's 5 nm process. The Intel chip, Ponte Vecchio, uses Intel's 10 nm process. AMD achieves 150.4M transistors per mm² on a 1017 mm² die, while Intel achieves 78.1M per mm² on a 1280 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from fundamentally different design lineages. AMD's Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip called Aqua Vanjaram, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. Intel's Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses the Generation 12.5 architecture on a chip called Ponte Vecchio, fabricated by Intel on a 10 nm process.

The transistor budgets reflect the process gap. AMD packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4M per mm². Intel fits 100,000 million transistors into a larger 1280 mm² die, yielding a density of 78.1M per mm². The AMD die is 263 mm² smaller but holds 53,000 million more transistors. That density advantage comes directly from the more advanced 5 nm node.

Compute resources differ across every subunit. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and no listed ROPs or RT cores. The Max 1100 has 7,168 shading units, 448 TMUs, no listed ROPs, and 56 RT cores. The shading unit ratio is 2.7 to 1 in AMD's favor, and the TMU ratio is the same. Intel's inclusion of 56 RT cores is the only compute feature where AMD has no listed equivalent.

Memory architecture shares the same 8192-bit bus width but diverges in technology and speed. AMD uses HBM3e at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, achieving 6.14 TB/s. Intel uses HBM2e at 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective, achieving 1.23 TB/s. The newer HBM3e standard provides both higher per-pin data rates and greater capacity per stack, which explains how AMD reaches 256 GB while Intel tops out at 48 GB.

Clock behavior differs mainly at the boost end. Both cards idle or base at 1000 MHz. AMD boosts to 2100 MHz, while Intel boosts to 1550 MHz. The 550 MHz boost advantage lets AMD extract more from its larger shader array, though it also contributes to the 1000 W TDP.

Power delivery and packaging represent the largest physical divergence. The MI325X is an OAM module with no power connectors and no display outputs, requiring a 1400 W PSU recommendation. The Max 1100 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, using a single 12-pin connector and a 700 W PSU recommendation. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16, so host integration is identical at the bus level.

API support marks another architectural difference. Intel records DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support. AMD records N/A for all three major graphics APIs. This suggests the Intel part retains some graphics API compatibility in its architecture, while the AMD part is purely compute-oriented with no exposed graphics pipeline.

Specification Differences

The database records the following fields where the two accelerators differ:

• Chip: AMD uses Aqua Vanjaram; Intel uses Ponte Vecchio.
• Architecture: AMD uses CDNA 3.0; Intel uses Generation 12.5.
• Process node: AMD uses 5 nm from TSMC; Intel uses 10 nm from Intel.
• Transistors: AMD has 153,000 million; Intel has 100,000 million.
• Die size: AMD is 1017 mm²; Intel is 1280 mm².
• Transistor density: AMD is 150.4M per mm²; Intel is 78.1M per mm².
• Boost clock: AMD is 2100 MHz; Intel is 1550 MHz.
• Memory clock: AMD is 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective; Intel is 600 MHz, 1200 Mbps effective.
• Memory size: AMD is 256 GB; Intel is 48 GB.
• Memory type: AMD uses HBM3e; Intel uses HBM2e.
• Memory bandwidth: AMD is 6.14 TB/s; Intel is 1.23 TB/s.
• Shading units: AMD has 19,456; Intel has 7,168.
• TMUs: AMD has 1,216; Intel has 448.
• RT cores: AMD lists none; Intel lists 56.
• Texture rate: AMD is 2,553.6 GTexel/s; Intel is 694.4 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: AMD is 81.72 TFLOPS; Intel is 22.22 TFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: AMD is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1); Intel is 22.22 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: AMD is 1000 W; Intel is 300 W.
• Slot width: AMD is OAM Module; Intel is Dual-slot.
• Power connectors: AMD lists None; Intel lists 1x 12-pin.
• Suggested PSU: AMD is 1400 W; Intel is 700 W.
• Dimensions: AMD lists no length; Intel is 267 mm (10.5 inches).
• DirectX support: AMD lists N/A; Intel lists 12 (12_1).
• OpenGL support: AMD lists N/A; Intel lists 4.6.
• Vulkan support: AMD lists N/A; Intel lists null.
• Release date: AMD is 2024-10-09; Intel is 2023-01-09.
• Predecessor: AMD lists Radeon Instinct; Intel lists none.
• Successor: AMD lists none; Intel lists H3C Graphics.
• Production status: AMD lists none; Intel lists Active.

Fields where the two match include the base clock at 1000 MHz, the memory bus width at 8192 bit, pixel rate at 0 MPixel/s, display outputs as none, bus interface as PCIe 5.0 x16, and percentile against all GPUs at 50.