AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Radeon RX 7900M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI350P and AMD Radeon RX 7900M represent two distinct branches of AMD’s GPU portfolio, one aimed at data center compute and the other at high-end mobile gaming. The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between these two parts, so the analysis below relies on their recorded specifications, architecture details, and the available benchmark data for the RX 7900M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark scores for the MI350P and RX 7900M. The MI350P has no recorded benchmark entries, giving it an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The RX 7900M, by contrast, has three recorded benchmark results and an average score of 97,487, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 7900M scores 4,201 points. This test is not applicable to the MI350P, as its API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The MI350P is a compute-focused accelerator with no display outputs, so rasterization-based workloads like 3DMark are outside its intended function.

For compute-oriented synthetic tests, the RX 7900M records 129,499 in Geekbench OpenCL and 158,760 in Geekbench Vulkan. The MI350P has no comparable entries in the database. The absence of MI350P benchmarks means its performance in these tests cannot be quantified, and the wins column in the head-to-head comparison shows zero wins for each side.

The closest rivals for the RX 7900M provide context for its average score. It sits 0.4% above the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131), 4.3% below the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (101,872), 5.4% above the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92,466), and 6.3% above the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671). These deltas show the RX 7900M clustering with professional workstation cards in raw average score, though its architecture targets a different market segment.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7900M wins in every recorded benchmark category because it is the only one with benchmark data. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4,201 demonstrates capability in modern DirectX 12 rendering workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 129,499 and Vulkan score of 158,760 indicate strong general-purpose compute performance across two major API frameworks.

The MI350P wins in raw specifications that favor data center workloads. It delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is close to the RX 7900M’s 38.52 TFLOPS, but the MI350P matches that FP32 figure in FP16 at 36.04 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7900M doubles its FP32 throughput in FP16, reaching 77.05 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. For AI inference and training that rely on reduced precision, the RX 7900M’s FP16 throughput is substantially higher on paper.

Memory capacity is the clearest differentiation. The MI350P carries 144 GB of HBM3e memory across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7900M has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For large models or datasets that exceed 16 GB, the MI350P is the only viable option between these two.

The RX 7900M has 192 ROPs and a pixel rate of 401.3 GPixel/s, while the MI350P has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. This confirms the MI350P is not designed for rasterized graphics output, whereas the RX 7900M supports full display functionality with outputs described as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 61.3 million per square millimeter. The chip is designated MI350 128CU, indicating 128 compute units. Its shading unit count is 8,192, with 512 texture mapping units.

The RX 7900M uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a higher transistor density of 109.1 million per square millimeter. The chip is Navi 31, with a codename of Plum Bonito. It has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 72 ray tracing cores.

Process node differences are significant: the MI350P uses 3 nm versus 5 nm for the RX 7900M, allowing the MI350P to pack more transistors despite the larger die. The MI350P’s die is more than double the size of the RX 7900M’s, but the RX 7900M achieves a higher transistor density due to its smaller node and different architecture priorities.

The MI350P has no ray tracing cores listed, consistent with its compute-focused CDNA design. The RX 7900M includes 72 ray tracing cores, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 APIs. The MI350P lists N/A for all graphics APIs, reinforcing its lack of graphics pipeline support.

Memory technology differs completely. The MI350P uses HBM3e with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the RX 7900M uses GDDR6 at 18 Gbps effective. The MI350P’s 8192-bit bus width enables its massive bandwidth, whereas the RX 7900M’s 256-bit bus is typical for a mobile GPU.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The MI350P has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The RX 7900M has a higher base clock of 1825 MHz but a lower boost clock of 2090 MHz. The MI350P’s memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the RX 7900M runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Power consumption differs by a wide margin. The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W, requiring a 1000 W suggested PSU and a 1x 16-pin power connector. The RX 7900M has a TDP of 180 W with no power connectors listed, as it is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) for portable devices. The RX 7900M has no suggested PSU figure, while the MI350P specifies 1000 W.

Form factors are opposite. The MI350P is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The RX 7900M is an IGP with no dimensions recorded, reflecting its integration into mobile platforms. The MI350P has no display outputs, while the RX 7900M’s outputs are portable device dependent.

Bus interfaces also differ: the MI350P uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7900M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Release dates are separated by roughly two and a half years, with the MI350P dated 2026-05-06 and the RX 7900M dated 2023-10-18. The MI350P’s predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the RX 7900M’s predecessor is Polaris Mobile. Both have no successor recorded.

The RX 7900M has a production status of Active, while the MI350P has no production status listed. The MI350P belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, and the RX 7900M belongs to the Navi Mobile generation under the RX 7000 series. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth from 144 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The AMD Radeon RX 7900M has 576.0 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Can the MI350P run DirectX 12 games?

A: No. The MI350P lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A, and it has no display outputs. The RX 7900M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference?

A: The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to its FP32 throughput. The RX 7900M delivers 77.05 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, more than double the MI350P’s FP16 figure.

Q: How does the RX 7900M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7900M’s average benchmark score of 97,487 is 0.4% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro VII, 4.3% lower than the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, 5.4% higher than the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60, and 6.3% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A4500.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The MI350P has a 600 W TDP and suggests a 1000 W PSU with a 1x 16-pin connector. The RX 7900M has a 180 W TDP and lists no power connectors or PSU requirement, as it is an IGP.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MI350P has 8,192 shading units, while the RX 7900M has 4,608. The MI350P also has 512 TMUs versus 288 for the RX 7900M, though the RX 7900M has 192 ROPs compared to zero for the MI350P.