AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Instinct MI350P and the AMD Radeon RX 7400 occupy completely different segments of the hardware landscape. The MI350P is a data center accelerator with no display outputs and no traditional graphics API support, while the RX 7400 is a desktop graphics card built for standard rendering workloads. The recorded data shows that the RX 7400 holds all measured benchmark wins, but that is only because the MI350P has no benchmark entries in the database. The MI350P instead delivers its performance through raw compute specifications that far exceed the RX 7400 on paper.

The RX 7400 produces a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1103, which places it at the 17th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its PassMark G3D score of 11897 represents the strongest overall graphics result in its test suite, while its PassMark G2D score of 1209 shows a solid 2D performance baseline. The compute-oriented PassMark GPU Compute score of 5152 indicates the card handles general compute tasks moderately well. In DirectX 9, the RX 7400 scores 176 in PassMark, a relatively strong legacy API result. The DirectX 10 score of 59 and DirectX 11 score of 97 demonstrate progressive scaling with newer API generations, while the DirectX 12 score of 44 is the lowest of the group, suggesting the architecture favors older instruction paths.

The nearest rivals for the RX 7400 confirm its position in the lower performance tier. The AMD Radeon 8040S averages 2440, sitting just 1.1 percent ahead of the RX 7400's average benchmark score of 2467. The NVIDIA GeForce 710M trails by 1.4 percent with an average of 2433, while the Intel HD Graphics 610 sits 1.8 percent behind at 2425. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M rounds out the group at 2422, 1.9 percent lower than the RX 7400. These deltas are tight, meaning the RX 7400 is essentially in a statistical tie with its closest competitors, all of which are low-power or entry-level parts. The RX 7400's 17th percentile ranking across all GPUs reinforces that it is not a high-performance part, but rather a capable entry-level option.

The MI350P has no recorded benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals in the database. Its percentile versus all GPUs is listed at 50, which is a neutral midpoint rather than a meaningful performance indicator. The absence of benchmark data reflects its role as a specialized accelerator rather than a general-purpose graphics card. Its compute specifications, however, tell a different story. The MI350P has 8192 shading units versus 1792 on the RX 7400, and 512 texture mapping units versus 112. Its FP32 throughput is listed at 36.04 TFLOPS, more than double the RX 7400's 16.49 TFLOPS. The FP16 figure for the MI350P is also 36.04 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 7400 reaches 32.97 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. This means the MI350P sustains full FP16 throughput without the rate penalty the RX 7400 incurs.

Memory capacity separates the two decisively. The MI350P carries 144 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The bandwidth differential is enormous, with the MI350P offering roughly 28 times the memory bandwidth of the RX 7400. The texture rate for the MI350P is 1126.4 GTexel/s compared to 257.6 GTexel/s for the RX 7400. Pixel rate figures are inverted in presentation: the MI350P is listed at 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the RX 7400 achieves 147.2 GPixel/s with its 64 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these two AMD products are not competitors in any practical sense. The RX 7400 is a conventional graphics card with display outputs, full API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and a measured benchmark footprint. It is designed for rendering, rasterization, and standard desktop workloads. The MI350P is an accelerator with no display outputs, no supported graphics APIs, and no benchmark scores in the database. It is built for compute-heavy data center tasks where raw FP32 and FP16 throughput, massive memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth matter more than graphics rendering.

The RX 7400 should be selected by anyone needing a functional graphics card for standard applications. Its 28 ray tracing cores, 64 ROPs, and 1792 shading units make it a genuine rendering device. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 compliance mean it can run modern games and software that require those APIs. The MI350P, by contrast, has zero ROPs, zero traditional graphics capabilities, and no display connectivity. It exists to feed data center workloads such as large-scale AI inference or high-performance computing, where the 144 GB memory pool and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth are the defining characteristics.

The benchmark results show the RX 7400 performing within a narrow band around its nearest rivals. Its average score of 2467 is only 1.1 percent above the AMD Radeon 8040S and 1.9 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M. This clustering suggests the RX 7400 offers no significant performance advantage over its immediate peers in the database. The MI350P has no comparable data, so any direct comparison of measured performance is impossible. The decision between the two comes down to workload type: rendering and display output require the RX 7400, while massive compute and memory bandwidth require the MI350P.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on TSMC's 3 nm process node, while the RX 7400 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on TSMC's 6 nm node. The process node difference is significant, with the MI350P benefiting from the more advanced 3 nm manufacturing. The MI350P integrates 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 61.3 million per square millimeter. The RX 7400 packs 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher density of 65.2 million per square millimeter despite the older node. The MI350P's die is roughly 5.8 times larger than the RX 7400's die, reflecting its much larger transistor budget.

The MI350P chip is designated as MI350 128CU, indicating 128 compute units. The RX 7400 uses the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, as part of the Navi III generation within the RX 7000 series. The MI350P belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, with its predecessor listed as Radeon Instinct. The RX 7400's predecessor is Navi II, and its successor is Navi IV. Clock behavior differs substantially: the MI350P has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the RX 7400 has a base clock of 1452 MHz, a game clock of 2200 MHz, and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The RX 7400 runs faster at base, but both reach similar boost frequencies.

Memory architecture is the most pronounced difference. The MI350P uses HBM3e with 144 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7400 uses GDDR6 with 8 GB capacity, a 128-bit bus, and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI350P's memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the RX 7400 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The RX 7400's memory operates at a higher effective data rate per pin, but the MI350P's vastly wider bus delivers far greater aggregate bandwidth.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The MI350P has 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs but zero ROPs, which explains its 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The RX 7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, enabling its 147.2 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI350P has no listed ray tracing cores, while the RX 7400 includes 28. Neither product lists tensor cores. The FP32 throughput of 36.04 TFLOPS for the MI350P versus 16.49 TFLOPS for the RX 7400 reflects the MI350P's larger shader count and higher per-clock efficiency on the 3 nm node.

Power and interface specifications also separate the two. The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W, requires a 1000 W suggested power supply, and uses a single 16-pin power connector. The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W, needs only a 200 W suggested power supply, and uses a single 6-pin connector. The MI350P connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI350P measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, while the RX 7400 has no recorded dimensions. Both are dual-slot cards. The RX 7400 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the MI350P provides no outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI350P has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The RX 7400 has 288.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the RX 7400 support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the RX 7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350P has no supported graphics APIs listed.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The MI350P contains 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, while the RX 7400 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die.

Q: Can the MI350P output video to a display?

A: No, the MI350P has no display outputs. The RX 7400 has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: What is the power requirement for each card?

A: The MI350P has a 600 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 1000 W. The RX 7400 has a 43 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 200 W.

Q: How does the RX 7400 compare to its nearest rival in the database?

A: The RX 7400 has an average benchmark score of 2467, which is 1.1 percent above the AMD Radeon 8040S average of 2440 and 1.9 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M average of 2422.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7400 wins in every measured benchmark category because it is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark scores. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1103 and its PassMark G3D score of 11897 demonstrate functional graphics rendering capability. The RX 7400 also wins in pixel throughput with 147.2 GPixel/s, a figure the MI350P cannot match because it has zero ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The RX 7400's 64 ROPs give it real rasterization power, and its 28 ray tracing cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing support. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support mean it can run standard graphics software, and its four display outputs allow multi-monitor setups.

The MI350P wins decisively in raw compute specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 36.04 TFLOPS is more than double the RX 7400's 16.49 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput of 36.04 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio means it processes half-precision data at full rate, unlike the RX 7400's 32.97 TFLOPS at a 2:1 penalty. The MI350P's 144 GB memory capacity is 18 times the RX 7400's 8 GB, and its 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is approximately 28 times the RX 7400's 288.0 GB/s. The MI350P's 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs dwarf the RX 7400's 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs, and its texture rate of 1126.4 GTexel/s is more than four times the RX 7400's 257.6 GTexel/s.

The MI350P also wins in connectivity and power infrastructure for data center deployment. It uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which offers double the bandwidth of the RX 7400's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. Its 3 nm process node and CDNA 4.0 architecture target compute acceleration, while the RX 7400's 6 nm node and RDNA 3.0 architecture target graphics rendering. The MI350P's 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested power supply reflect a high-performance accelerator design, whereas the RX 7400's 43 W TDP and 200 W suggested power supply make it an energy-efficient desktop card. For workloads involving large datasets, massive parallel compute, or AI inference, the MI350P is the clear choice based on specifications. For gaming, desktop rendering, or any task requiring display output and graphics API support, the RX 7400 is the only functional option.