AMD Instinct MI325X vs Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile Comparison

AMD Instinct MI325X and Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The MI325X is a massive accelerator built for compute-heavy server workloads, while the Intel part is an integrated graphics solution for laptops. The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two, so the analysis must rely on their respective specifications and performance characteristics as listed in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no benchmark scores for either product, and no head-to-head benchmark results are recorded for this pairing. The wins counter for each item is zero. This means the comparison cannot be expressed in measured performance deltas or percentile shifts. Instead, the specification data provides the only basis for assessing relative capability.

The raw compute figures illustrate the scale of the difference. The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP16 performance with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile produces 819.2 GFLOPS of FP32 and 1.638 TFLOPS of FP16. Converting those numbers, the MI325X provides roughly 100 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part, and roughly 50 times the FP16 throughput depending on the exact workload characteristics. These are not benchmark results, but they are the recorded theoretical peak values that define the performance envelope.

Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern. The MI325X has a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Intel part manages 25.60 GTexel/s. The MI325X is approximately 100 times faster in texture fill. Pixel rate presents an interesting inversion in the specification sheet: the MI325X is listed with 0 MPixel/s and 0 ROPs, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has 8 ROPs and a 12.80 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI325X is not designed for traditional rasterization output, so its pixel pipeline is effectively absent. The Intel part, despite being a low-power integrated GPU, has a functioning rasterization path.

Memory bandwidth is another area of massive divergence. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e memory across an 8192-bit bus, producing 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no fixed number exists in the database for its throughput. The MI325X memory clock is listed at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel part reports no dedicated memory clock. The 8192-bit bus width of the MI325X is the widest memory interface in the database, and it directly enables the 6.14 TB/s figure. The Intel part relies on whatever memory bandwidth the host laptop provides, which is entirely dependent on the system configuration.

Clock speeds show the expected relationship for their respective power envelopes. The MI325X runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and 2100 MHz boost clock. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile runs at 300 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. Despite the higher boost clock potential of the AMD part, the dominant factor in its performance advantage is the sheer number of shading units: 19,456 for the MI325X versus 256 for the Intel part. That is a 76-to-1 ratio in shader count. Texture mapping units stand at 1,216 versus 16, a 76-to-1 ratio as well. These ratios align closely with the FP32 throughput ratio, confirming that the compute advantage scales with the execution resources.

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has a peak FP32 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has a peak FP32 rate of 819.2 GFLOPS. The AMD accelerator is approximately 100 times higher in this metric.

Q: How much memory does each product use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory with a 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has no dedicated memory; it uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption of each part?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Which product supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, meaning it lacks these conventional graphics APIs.

Q: What are the respective manufacturing processes?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Q: When was each product released?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X was released on 2024-10-09. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile was released on 2023-01-03.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, which is specifically designed for compute and data center workloads. Its chip is codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, and it belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile uses the Generation 12.2 architecture, built on the Raptor Lake chip, and is categorized under HD Graphics-M for Raptor Lake.

Manufacturing processes differ significantly. The AMD part uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. That gives a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel part uses a 10 nm process at Intel, and the database records no transistor count or die size for it. The lack of those figures for the Intel part means the density cannot be calculated.

The execution resource layout reveals the fundamental design intent. The MI325X contains 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. Having no ROPs means it cannot perform the final pixel output stage of a traditional graphics pipeline. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile contains 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The presence of ROPs confirms it is a conventional graphics processor capable of rendering to a display. The MI325X has no display outputs, while the Intel part has display outputs that are portable device dependent.

Memory architecture could not be more different. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is 1500 MHz, with a 6 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel part uses system shared memory of system shared type, with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. There is no dedicated memory clock for the Intel part. This means the Intel part competes with the CPU for memory access, while the AMD part has its own massive dedicated memory pool.

Compute precision ratios differ as well. The MI325X lists FP16 at 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 and FP32 throughput are identical. The Intel part lists FP16 at 1.638 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. The AMD part does not gain extra throughput from reduced precision, while the Intel part does. This is a meaningful architectural distinction: the MI325X appears optimized for FP32 workloads, while the Intel part has a modest FP16 advantage over its own FP32 baseline.

Power delivery and physical format also diverge. The MI325X is an OAM Module with no power connectors listed, a TDP of 1000 W, and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Intel part is an IGP with a TDP of 15 W and no power connector information. The bus interface for the MI325X is PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. These differences reflect the placement of each product: the MI325X sits in a server chassis with dedicated power delivery, and the Intel part is soldered into a laptop processor package.

The Verdict

The data indicates these are not competing products. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no conventional graphics APIs, and no ROPs. It is built for throughput in dense compute environments. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile is an integrated GPU with display outputs, DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, and a 15 W power draw. It is built for rendering and display tasks within a mobile system.

For workloads that require massive FP32 or FP16 compute, the MI325X is the clear choice. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 figure and 6.14 TB/s memory bandwidth dwarf anything the Intel part can provide. The 256 GB HBM3e memory pool also removes any reliance on system memory, which is a critical advantage for large datasets. The Intel part cannot approach these numbers, and its use of system shared memory makes its performance dependent on the host platform.

For tasks that require conventional graphics rendering, the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile is the functional option. It supports the standard graphics APIs, has ROPs for pixel output, and can drive portable device displays. The MI325X cannot do any of this. Its N/A entries for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, combined with its zero ROP count and no display outputs, render it unsuitable for any sort of graphics output workload.

The power envelope reinforces this split. The MI325X consumes 1000 W and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU, which is only feasible in a server environment. The Intel part consumes 15 W, which is appropriate for a laptop. There is no scenario in the data where one product substitutes for the other.

Specification Differences

The database lists several fields where the two products differ. The process node is 5 nm for the AMD part and 10 nm for the Intel part. The foundry is TSMC for AMD and Intel for Intel. Transistor count is 153,000 million for AMD and null for Intel. Die size is 1017 mm² for AMD and null for Intel. Transistor density is 150.4 million per mm² for AMD and null for Intel.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The AMD part runs at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective for AMD, and system shared for Intel.

Memory configuration differs completely. AMD uses 256 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with system shared type, system shared bus width, and system dependent bandwidth.

Execution units differ. AMD has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. Intel has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for AMD and 12.80 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s for AMD and 25.60 GTexel/s for Intel.

Compute throughput differs. AMD lists FP32 at 81.72 TFLOPS and FP16 at 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Intel lists FP32 at 819.2 GFLOPS and FP16 at 1.638 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Power figures differ. AMD has a 1000 W TDP, an OAM Module slot width, no power connectors, and a 1400 W suggested PSU. Intel has a 15 W TDP, an IGP slot width, no power connector data, and no suggested PSU data.

Bus interface differs. AMD uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Intel uses Ring Bus. Display outputs differ: AMD has no outputs, Intel has portable device dependent outputs. API support differs: AMD lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates differ. AMD was released on 2024-10-09. Intel was released on 2023-01-03. Production status is null for AMD and active for Intel. The Intel part lists Arc Graphics-M as its successor, while the AMD part lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins in every metric related to raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS, FP16 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS, texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, and memory bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s are all far above the Intel part. Its 256 GB of HBM3e memory is a decisive advantage for workloads that need large in-memory datasets. The 8192-bit bus width is a structural advantage that cannot be matched by any system shared memory configuration. The 1000 W TDP, while high, reflects the power budget required to feed those compute resources.

The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile wins in areas related to graphics output and system integration. It has 8 ROPs and a 12.80 GPixel/s pixel rate, which means it can actually output rendered frames. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it a software ecosystem for graphics applications. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning it can drive laptop panels. Its 15 W TDP makes it feasible for mobile devices, and its Ring Bus interface integrates directly with the host processor. The production status is active, indicating it is a current product for its segment.

The FP16 ratio difference points to a specific workload split. The Intel part doubles its throughput in FP16 relative to FP32, so workloads that can use reduced precision may see relatively better performance on that part, though the absolute numbers remain far below the AMD accelerator. The AMD part keeps FP16 and FP32 at the same rate, so there is no precision-based speedup available there.

The release timeline also shapes the comparison. The Intel part launched on 2023-01-03 and has an active production status with a defined successor, Arc Graphics-M. The AMD part launched on 2024-10-09 with no successor listed. The AMD part is the newer release by roughly 21 months.

The data does not support a direct competition between these two products. Each wins in its own domain: the MI325X in compute throughput and memory capacity, the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile in graphics rendering, API support, and mobile power efficiency. The absence of benchmark scores and nearest rivals in the database leaves the specification sheet as the sole evidence, and that evidence points to two products built for entirely different purposes.