AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Instinct MI350X Comparison

# FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Instinct MI350P and the AMD Instinct MI350X?

A: Both accelerators use the CDNA 4.0 architecture and are built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The MI350P uses the MI350 128CU chip, while the MI350X uses the MI350 256CU chip. This doubles the MI350X's shading units from 8192 to 16384 and its texture mapping units from 512 to 1024.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e memory, while the MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e. Both share the same 8192-bit memory bus and identical memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s. The memory clock is also the same at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two cards?

A: The MI350P contains 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm2 die, resulting in a transistor density of 61.3M per mm2. The MI350X contains 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm2 die, achieving a higher density of 77.7M per mm2.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput in FP32 operations?

A: The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is exactly double the 36.04 TFLOPS delivered by the MI350P. Both cards implement FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning the FP16 figures are identical to their respective FP32 values.

Q: What are the power requirements for each accelerator?

A: The MI350P has a 600 W TDP and requires a 1000 W power supply. The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP and requires a 1400 W power supply. The MI350P uses one 16-pin power connector, while the MI350X has no power connectors because it is an OAM module.

Q: When did each product launch?

A: The MI350X was released on June 11, 2025. The MI350P was released on May 6, 2026, roughly eleven months later. Neither product has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both accelerators are built on the CDNA 4.0 architecture, which indicates they share design principles oriented toward compute workloads rather than graphics. The manufacturing process is identical at 3 nm, and both use TSMC as the foundry. Despite these commonalities, the physical implementation differs substantially.

The MI350P uses the MI350 128CU chip, which places 8192 shading units and 512 texture mapping units on a 1190 mm2 die. The MI350X uses the MI350 256CU chip, doubling the compute resources to 16384 shading units and 1024 texture mapping units on a 2380 mm2 die. The die size exactly doubles, but the transistor count scales more aggressively: 73,000 million transistors on the MI350P versus 185,000 million on the MI350X. This creates a notable density difference, with the MI350P at 61.3M transistors per mm2 and the MI350X at 77.7M per mm2. The higher density suggests the MI350X uses a more compact transistor layout despite the same process node.

Memory architecture shares the HBM3e type and the 8192-bit bus width, but capacity differs by a factor of two. The MI350P carries 144 GB, while the MI350X carries 288 GB. Bandwidth remains constant at 8.19 TB/s for both, indicating that the memory controllers operate at the same effective rate. The memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective throughput on both cards.

Neither accelerator includes raster operation units, as both report 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. They also lack display outputs entirely, which is consistent with their purpose as compute accelerators rather than graphics cards. The API support reflects this: DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all marked as not applicable for both products.

Clock behavior is identical. Both run at a 1000 MHz base clock and boost to 2200 MHz. This means the performance gap between the two cards comes entirely from the doubling of compute units and the larger memory capacity, not from any clock speed advantage.

The physical form factors diverge significantly. The MI350P is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, using a single 16-pin power connector. The MI350X is an OAM module measuring 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width with no power connectors, relying on the baseboard for power delivery. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

The MI350X was released on June 11, 2025. The MI350P followed on May 6, 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350P positions itself as a lower-power alternative with the same memory bandwidth and the same clock speeds as the larger card. Its 600 W TDP means it can be deployed in systems with a 1000 W power supply recommendation, which is a meaningful difference from the MI350X's 1000 W TDP and 1400 W power supply recommendation. The dual-slot form factor with a 16-pin connector makes it compatible with standard server power delivery infrastructure, while the larger card requires an OAM baseboard.

The MI350X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 72.09 TFLOPS is exactly double the MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS. The same doubling applies to FP16 performance, which scales at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 on both cards. The texture rate follows the same pattern: 2,252.8 GTexel/s on the MI350X versus 1,126.4 GTexel/s on the MI350P. These figures indicate that the MI350X will complete compute workloads in roughly half the time when memory bandwidth is not the limiting factor.

The MI350X also doubles the memory capacity to 288 GB versus 144 GB on the MI350P. This matters for workloads that require large model weights or datasets to reside in high-bandwidth memory. The identical 8.19 TB/s bandwidth on both cards means the MI350P can match the MI350X on bandwidth-limited operations, but the MI350X can hold twice as much data before spilling to slower storage.

The MI350P holds advantages in power efficiency and deployment flexibility. Its 600 W TDP is 40% lower than the MI350X's 1000 W TDP. The smaller die size of 1190 mm2 versus 2380 mm2 may also simplify thermal management in dense server configurations. The dual-slot form factor with a standard 16-pin PCIe power connector is easier to integrate into existing server designs that were built around PCIe accelerator cards.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ in several key specifications:

• Chip: MI350 128CU on the MI350P, MI350 256CU on the MI350X
• Shading units: 8192 on the MI350P, 16384 on the MI350X
• Texture mapping units: 512 on the MI350P, 1024 on the MI350X
• Transistors: 73,000 million on the MI350P, 185,000 million on the MI350X
• Die size: 1190 mm2 on the MI350P, 2380 mm2 on the MI350X
• Transistor density: 61.3M per mm2 on the MI350P, 77.7M per mm2 on the MI350X
• Memory capacity: 144 GB on the MI350P, 288 GB on the MI350X
• FP32 compute: 36.04 TFLOPS on the MI350P, 72.09 TFLOPS on the MI350X
• FP16 compute: 36.04 TFLOPS on the MI350P, 72.09 TFLOPS on the MI350X
• Texture rate: 1,126.4 GTexel/s on the MI350P, 2,252.8 GTexel/s on the MI350X
• TDP: 600 W on the MI350P, 1000 W on the MI350X
• Slot width: Dual-slot on the MI350P, OAM Module on the MI350X
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin on the MI350P, none on the MI350X
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W on the MI350P, 1400 W on the MI350X
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm on the MI350P, 102 mm x 165 mm on the MI350X
• Release date: May 6, 2026 for the MI350P, June 11, 2025 for the MI350X

Identical specifications include the CDNA 4.0 architecture, 3 nm process node at TSMC, 1000 MHz base clock, 2200 MHz boost clock, 2000 MHz memory clock with 8 Gbps effective rate, HBM3e memory type, 8192-bit memory bus, 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth, 0 ROPs, 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, no display outputs, no applicable graphics APIs, PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, and no launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the MI350P and the MI350X. Both products have an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database. The wins counter shows 0 for both accelerators, and the nearest rivals lists are empty. The absence of benchmark data means the comparative analysis must rely entirely on the architectural specifications recorded in the database.

The most significant compute advantage for the MI350X is its FP32 throughput. The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS, which is exactly 100% higher than the MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS. This direct doubling appears across all compute metrics, including FP16 at 72.09 TFLOPS versus 36.04 TFLOPS and texture rate at 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 1,126.4 GTexel/s.

The memory bandwidth situation is a tie. Both cards deliver 8.19 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3e interface at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed. This means workloads that saturate memory bandwidth will see no difference between the two cards. The MI350X only distinguishes itself when the working set exceeds 144 GB, at which point its 288 GB capacity avoids spills that would force the MI350P to use slower system memory.

Clock speeds are also identical at 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The performance gap is therefore purely a function of the doubled compute unit count and doubled memory capacity on the MI350X. The MI350P's smaller chip with 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm2 die operates at the same clocks as the MI350X's 185,000 million transistor chip on a 2380 mm2 die.

The physical design differences reflect their intended deployment environments. The MI350P's dual-slot card format with a 16-pin connector and 600 W TDP suits standard PCIe server chassis. The MI350X's OAM module format with 1000 W TDP and no onboard power connectors targets dense accelerator baseboards that supply power through the module interface.

The release schedule shows the MI350X arrived first on June 11, 2025, with the MI350P following on May 6, 2026. Both products descend from the Radeon Instinct line, and neither has a recorded successor in the database.