AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Radeon RX 9070 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the AMD Radeon RX 9070 as the only one of the two with measurable graphics benchmarks. The AMD Instinct MI350P has no benchmark scores, no average score, and no computed percentile beyond a 50th percentile placeholder across all GPUs, while the RX 9070 holds a 69th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 23,877. The MI350P is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs and no supported graphics APIs, which explains the absence of graphics benchmark data. The RX 9070, by contrast, is an active production consumer GPU with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, plus a full set of display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a. The data indicates that the RX 9070 is the appropriate choice for any graphics workload that requires a display output or standard graphics API compatibility. The MI350P, with its 144 GB of HBM3e memory and 8.19 TB/s of memory bandwidth, is the choice for memory-capacity-bound compute tasks, provided the software stack does not depend on graphics APIs.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P uses the MI350 128CU chip built on CDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The RX 9070 uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The MI350P integrates 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 61.3M per mm². The RX 9070 integrates 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, yielding a much higher transistor density of 151.0M per mm². The MI350P has 8192 shading units and 512 texture mapping units, but reports 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, which is consistent with a part that lacks a conventional rasterizer output stage. The RX 9070 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 56 ray tracing cores, with a pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 564.5 GTexel/s. The MI350P texture rate is 1,126.4 GTexel/s, roughly double that of the RX 9070, reflecting the larger shader array. The MI350P memory subsystem uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 9070 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s. The MI350P uses a 1x 16-pin power connector with a 600 W TDP and a suggested 1000 W power supply. The RX 9070 uses 2x 8-pin connectors with a 220 W TDP and a suggested 550 W power supply. The MI350P has no display outputs and no supported graphics APIs, while the RX 9070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Clock behavior also differs: the MI350P runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, while the RX 9070 runs at a 1330 MHz base, a 2070 MHz game clock, and a 2520 MHz boost. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the MI350P against the RX 9070, and the MI350P has no individual benchmark scores recorded. The RX 9070 has ten recorded benchmark results. Its highest synthetic score is 131,539 in Geekbench OpenCL, followed by 58,705 in Geekbench Vulkan. In Passmark tests, the RX 9070 scores 25,381 in G3D, 14,737 in GPU Compute, 1,280 in G2D, 343 in DirectX 9, 281 in DirectX 11, 141 in DirectX 10, and 74 in DirectX 12. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 6,290. The MI350P, with zero recorded benchmarks and an average benchmark score of 0, cannot be compared numerically on any of these tests. The FP32 compute figures are nearly identical: the MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS and the RX 9070 delivers 36.13 TFLOPS, a difference of only 0.09 TFLOPS in favor of the RX 9070. Both also deliver FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with the same respective totals. In terms of nearest rivals, the RX 9070 sits 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z, 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile, 0.8% below the AMD Radeon RX 6800S, and 1.2% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER. These deltas are small, placing the RX 9070 in a tight performance cluster around the 23,600 to 24,200 average score range.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Instinct MI350P have no benchmark scores in the database?

A: The MI350P has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed. The card also has no display outputs and no supported graphics APIs, which is consistent with an accelerator not intended for graphics benchmarking.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The MI350P provides 8.19 TB/s from 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus. The RX 9070 provides 644.6 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput of each card?

A: The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32. The RX 9070 delivers 36.13 TFLOPS of FP32. Both deliver FP16 at a 1:1 ratio matching their FP32 figures.

Q: Which card supports DirectX and Vulkan?

A: The RX 9070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350P lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: How does the RX 9070 compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RX 9070 average score of 23,877 is 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z, 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile, 0.8% below the AMD Radeon RX 6800S, and 1.2% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI350P has a 600 W TDP, uses a 1x 16-pin power connector, and suggests a 1000 W power supply. The RX 9070 has a 220 W TDP, uses 2x 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350P wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 144 GB of HBM3e is nine times the 16 GB of the RX 9070, and its 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is more than twelve times the 644.6 GB/s of the RX 9070. The MI350P also has more than double the shading units at 8192 versus 3584, and a higher texture rate at 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 564.5 GTexel/s. The MI350P uses a larger die at 1190 mm² versus 357 mm² and integrates more transistors at 73,000 million versus 53,900 million. These characteristics favor workloads that are bound by memory footprint or memory throughput, such as large model inference or data processing that fits within a 144 GB address space. The MI350P also uses a 3 nm process versus the 4 nm process of the RX 9070, which indicates a newer manufacturing node for the compute part.

The RX 9070 wins in graphics capability and software compatibility. It has 128 ROPs and a 322.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the MI350P has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The RX 9070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI350P has no API support. The RX 9070 has 56 ray tracing cores, which the MI350P does not list. The RX 9070 provides display outputs, with 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, while the MI350P has no outputs. The RX 9070 has a higher boost clock at 2520 MHz versus 2200 MHz, and a higher base clock at 1330 MHz versus 1000 MHz. The RX 9070 also has a much higher transistor density at 151.0M per mm² versus 61.3M per mm², indicating a more compact logic design for its function. The RX 9070 is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark scores, an average score of 23,877, and a 69th percentile ranking, so all measured performance data in the database belongs to this card. The MI350P sits at the 50th percentile placeholder with no measured scores. The RX 9070 also carries a much lower power requirement at 220 W versus 600 W, and a lower suggested power supply at 550 W versus 1000 W. The RX 9070 has a launch MSRP of 549 USD. For any use case that requires a display, a graphics API, or a measured graphics benchmark result, the RX 9070 is the only option supported by the data. For compute tasks that demand the 144 GB memory capacity and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth of the MI350P, the MI350P is the only option that provides those specifications.