AMD Instinct MI350P vs Intel Arc 140V Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI350P against the Intel Arc 140V Mobile. Both entries hold an identical percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs, with average benchmark scores of zero. This indicates that neither part has accumulated measurable performance data in the current database snapshot, so direct numerical comparisons are not available.

The raw specifications, however, reveal a dramatic performance envelope difference. The AMD Instinct MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 36.04 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile delivers 3.994 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.987 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). In raw FP32 throughput, the MI350P is approximately 9 times higher. In FP16, the MI350P still leads by a factor of roughly 4.5 despite Intel's packed math advantage.

Texture throughput shows a similar chasm. The MI350P reaches 1,126.4 GTexel/s, while the Arc 140V manages 124.8 GTexel/s. Pixel rate goes the other direction entirely: the MI350P reports 0 MPixel/s, whereas the Arc 140V achieves 62.40 GPixel/s. This reflects the fundamental design targets of each part, one built for compute acceleration without a display pipeline, the other for integrated graphics with full rasterization.

Memory bandwidth is equally lopsided. The MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, producing 8.19 TB/s. The Arc 140V uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. No fixed bandwidth figure exists for Intel's part, but the architectural difference is clear: a dedicated 8.19 TB/s memory subsystem versus a shared memory implementation that borrows from system RAM.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI350P runs at a 1000 MHz base with a 2200 MHz boost, while the Arc 140V idles at 300 MHz base and boosts to 1950 MHz. The AMD part operates at higher frequencies despite its much larger die and thermal envelope, reflecting a server-oriented power delivery design.

The Verdict

The data does not support a conventional performance comparison because no benchmark scores exist for either product. The database shows zero recorded wins for each side in head-to-head testing. What the specifications make clear is that these are not competing products in any meaningful sense.

The AMD Instinct MI350P targets compute acceleration for data center workloads. Its 600 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, 1x 16-pin power connector, 1000 W suggested PSU, and absence of display outputs place it firmly in server racks. It has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, meaning it cannot render graphics in any standard consumer or workstation application. Its 8192 shading units, 512 TMUs, and zero ROPs confirm a pure compute architecture.

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile is an integrated GPU inside a Lunar Lake processor. Its 37 W TDP, IGP slot width, portable-device-dependent display outputs, and full API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4) make it a graphics solution for laptops and compact devices. It has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores.

A user or system builder selecting between these two would be making a category error. The MI350P cannot output video, run games, or accelerate desktop graphics. The Arc 140V cannot sustain the memory bandwidth, compute throughput, or capacity required for large-scale AI training or scientific simulation. The data indicates that the MI350P wins decisively on raw compute and memory metrics, while the Arc 140V wins on graphics feature support, pixel throughput, and power efficiency. Neither part can substitute for the other.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The chip is designated MI350 128CU, containing 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 61.3 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile uses the Xe2-LPG architecture, also on a 3 nm TSMC process, but with a 172 mm² die and an unknown transistor count. The die size difference is substantial: the AMD chip is nearly seven times larger by area.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e memory with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc 140V uses system shared memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and bandwidth that depends on the host system's memory configuration. The MI350P's memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate, while the Arc 140V's memory clock is simply system shared.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The MI350P features 8192 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The Arc 140V has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD part also has no ray tracing cores listed, while the Intel part has 8. Tensor core counts are not provided for either product.

API support tells a story of divergent purposes. The MI350P lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Arc 140V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means the MI350P cannot run graphics workloads, while the Arc 140V is fully capable of modern gaming and graphics applications.

Power and physical design reinforce the split. The MI350P consumes 600 W, requires a 1000 W suggested PSU, uses a dual-slot cooler with a 1x 16-pin power connector, and measures 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm. The Arc 140V consumes 37 W, has no power connector requirements, is an IGP, and has no listed dimensions. The MI350P uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface; the Arc 140V uses an IGP bus interface.

Release timing also differs. The MI350P is dated 2026-05-06, while the Arc 140V launched on 2024-09-23. The Intel part carries a production status of active and lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor. The AMD part has no production status and lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile delivers 3.994 TFLOPS. The AMD part is approximately 9 times higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350P support graphics APIs?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI350P. It also has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any graphics rendering workload.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc 140V uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no fixed bus width.

Q: How do the two compare in pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile achieves 62.40 GPixel/s, while the AMD Instinct MI350P reports 0 MPixel/s. The MI350P has no ROPs, so it cannot perform pixel rasterization at all.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI350P has a 600 W TDP and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU. The Arc 140V has a 37 W TDP and no power supply recommendation. The AMD part consumes over 16 times the power of the Intel part.

Q: Are these two GPUs comparable for gaming?

A: No. The Arc 140V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with 32 ROPs and 8 ray tracing cores. The MI350P has no graphics API support, no ROPs, and no display outputs. They serve entirely different application domains.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Instinct MI350P wins on compute density and memory capacity. Its 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1) throughput, 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 144 GB HBM3e capacity make it suited for large-scale data center workloads such as AI training, scientific simulation, and high-performance computing. The 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs provide massive parallel throughput for compute kernels. The 2200 MHz boost clock sustains high utilization across a 1190 mm² die. The 73,000 million transistor count and CDNA 4.0 architecture target server deployments where power consumption of 600 W and dual-slot cooling are acceptable trade-offs for raw performance.

Intel Arc 140V Mobile wins on graphics features, pixel throughput, and power efficiency. Its 62.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores enable actual rendering workloads. Full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can run modern games and graphics applications. The 37 W TDP fits within mobile thermal envelopes, and its IGP form factor requires no separate power connectors or cooling solution. The 124.8 GTexel/s texture rate, while far below the MI350P, is sufficient for integrated graphics in portable devices. Its 7.987 TFLOPS FP16 output shows efficient packed math, achieving nearly half the MI350P's FP16 throughput at roughly 6 percent of the power draw.

The MI350P wins on raw numbers across compute, memory, and bandwidth. The Arc 140V wins on the ability to display images, run graphics APIs, and operate within a laptop power budget. The database records no benchmark wins for either product, so the specification sheet is the only basis for allocation. The MI350P is a compute accelerator with no visual output. The Arc 140V is a graphics processor with no server-grade compute capacity. Each wins decisively in its own domain, and neither can claim any advantage in the other's territory.