AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Radeon 780M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Instinct MI350P and AMD Radeon 780M occupy entirely different segments, and the recorded data reflects that divide clearly. The MI350P is a compute accelerator with no benchmark scores in the database, while the 780M, an integrated graphics processor, has three recorded benchmark results. This asymmetry makes a direct score comparison impossible, but the available data still reveals the relative positioning of each part.

The Radeon 780M delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,602 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,683. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result is 480. The average benchmark score for the 780M is 17,588. That average places it at the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database. The MI350P, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, indicating no recorded workloads.

The nearest rivals for the 780M show how tight the competition is at this performance level. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 averages 17,551, a delta of 0.2 percent behind the 780M. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 averages 17,509, a delta of 0.5 percent behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 averages 17,639, a delta of 0.3 percent ahead of the 780M. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 averages 17,666, a delta of 0.4 percent ahead. These margins are narrow, all within half a percentage point, indicating that the 780M performs in a tightly packed cluster of discrete and older integrated solutions.

The MI350P has no nearest rivals listed and no head-to-head benchmark entries. Its wins and losses in the head-to-head category are both zero. The data shows that the database has not yet recorded any comparable workload results for this accelerator. Its 50th percentile ranking, despite a zero average score, likely reflects its broad specification footprint rather than measured performance.

The 780M, by contrast, has three wins in its benchmark portfolio relative to its nearest rivals, though the deltas are small. Its strongest recorded result is the Vulkan score of 33,683, which is nearly double its OpenCL score of 18,602. The Steel Nomad score of 480 is a low absolute number, but that test targets discrete-class rendering workloads, and the 780M is an integrated part with a 15 W design envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark average, the MI350P or the 780M?

A: The Radeon 780M has an average benchmark score of 17,588, while the MI350P has an average of zero, meaning no benchmark results are recorded for it.

Q: How does the 780M compare to its closest rivals in average score?

A: The 780M trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 by 0.3 percent and the AMD Radeon HD 7790 by 0.4 percent. It leads the AMD Radeon Pro 560 by 0.2 percent and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 by 0.5 percent.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The MI350P sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the 780M ranks at the 61st percentile.

Q: Does the MI350P have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the MI350P has an empty benchmark list, an average score of zero, and no nearest rivals in the database.

Q: What is the 780M's best recorded benchmark result?

A: The 780M's highest score is 33,683 in Geekbench Vulkan, followed by 18,602 in Geekbench OpenCL and 480 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12.

Q: Are the 780M's rivalry margins significant?

A: No, all four nearest rival deltas are within 0.5 percent, indicating essentially equivalent performance in the database's aggregate scoring.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families within AMD's lineup. The MI350P uses CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The 780M uses RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is one nanometer, but the design goals diverge sharply.

The MI350P is a compute-focused accelerator with a chip labeled "MI350 128CU." It packs 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 61.3 million per square millimeter. The 780M, using the Phoenix chip, integrates 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, with a density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The MI350P's die is nearly seven times larger, but its density is less than half that of the 780M, reflecting different design priorities: raw compute throughput versus integration efficiency.

The MI350P has 8192 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. Its pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s, and its texture rate is 1,126.4 GTexel/s. The 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 92.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s. The MI350P's shading unit count is over ten times higher, but its lack of ROPs means it is not designed for traditional rasterization output.

The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, with a 1:1 ratio. The 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, also at 1:1. The MI350P's FP32 throughput is roughly four times that of the 780M. The 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the MI350P lists no RT cores. The MI350P has no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory architecture could not be more different. The MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective. The 780M uses system shared memory, with its bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. Its memory clock is also system shared. The MI350P's memory capacity and bandwidth are orders of magnitude beyond what an integrated GPU can access.

The Verdict

The data shows two products aimed at separate workloads with no overlap. The MI350P is an accelerator with no display output, no consumer API support, and compute-oriented specifications. Its 144 GB of HBM3e, 8192-bit bus, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth are built for memory-bound data center tasks. Its 600 W TDP and dual-slot cooler with a single 16-pin power connector reinforce that positioning. The 780M is an integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and motherboard-dependent display outputs, designed for portable or low-power systems.

Benchmark results only exist for the 780M. Its 61st percentile ranking and tight rivalry margins, within 0.5 percent of four other GPUs, indicate that it performs on par with older discrete cards like the Radeon Pro 560 and Pro 460, as well as the GeForce RTX 4060 and Radeon HD 7790 in aggregate scoring. The MI350P has no recorded scores, so its 50th percentile is not performance-derived.

For a system builder choosing between these two, the decision is dictated by the workload. The MI350P is the only option for tasks requiring massive memory bandwidth and high FP32 throughput, such as large-scale compute or AI training. The 780M is the only option for a client system needing graphics output, API support, and low power consumption. The MI350P cannot output video, and the 780M cannot approach the MI350P's memory capacity or compute density.

The recorded data does not support a direct performance comparison. It supports a functional separation: the MI350P is a server accelerator, and the 780M is an integrated client GPU. Neither can substitute for the other.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification field. The MI350P uses a 3 nm process; the 780M uses a 4 nm process. Both come from TSMC. The MI350P has 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die; the 780M has 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. Transistor density is 61.3M per mm² for the MI350P and 142.6M per mm² for the 780M.

Clock speeds differ. The MI350P has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The 780M boosts higher, but the MI350P's shading unit count is far larger.

Memory is a major differentiator. The MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e on a 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The 780M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The MI350P's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective; the 780M has no dedicated memory clock.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The MI350P has 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs, with zero ROPs. The 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI350P has no RT cores; the 780M has 12. FP32 and FP16 performance are 36.04 TFLOPS for the MI350P and 8.909 TFLOPS for the 780M, both at 1:1.

Power and physical design differ completely. The MI350P has a 600 W TDP, is dual-slot, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU. The 780M has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP, has no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU. The MI350P uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the 780M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI350P has no display outputs; the 780M's outputs are motherboard dependent. The MI350P measures 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm; the 780M has no recorded dimensions.

API support is exclusive to the 780M. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350P lists N/A for all three. Release dates also differ: the MI350P is dated 2026-05-06, and the 780M is dated 2024-01-30. The 780M's production status is active; the MI350P's is not listed. The MI350P's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, and the 780M's predecessor is Navi II IGP with a successor of Navi III IGP.