AMD Instinct MI350P vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data positions the AMD Instinct MI350P and Intel Arc A310E at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, with no overlapping use cases. The MI350P is an accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 144 GB HBM3e memory pool. Its entire design targets compute workloads where massive memory capacity and bandwidth matter more than rasterization. The Arc A310E, by contrast, is a fully featured graphics card with 4 GB GDDR6, four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a 75 W power envelope. It is built for embedded and low-profile visual tasks.

The MI350P wins on every metric related to raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 36.04 TFLOPS is more than eleven times the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,126.4 GTexel/s dwarfs the 64.00 GTexel/s of the Intel part. Memory bandwidth tells a similar story: 8.19 TB/s versus 124.0 GB/s, a factor of roughly 66. These are not competitive differences; they are categorical ones. The MI350P is a server accelerator, while the Arc A310E is a low-power embedded GPU.

The Arc A310E wins in areas the MI350P simply does not address. It has a pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s, whereas the MI350P records 0 MPixel/s. The Intel card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the MI350P lists N/A for all three. The Arc A310E draws power from the slot with no external connectors and carries a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI350P requires a 1000 W PSU and a single 16-pin connector. Any workload that needs a display output, graphics API, or modest power draw belongs exclusively to the Arc A310E.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share a foundry, TSMC, but little else. The MI350P uses a 3 nm process and packs 73,000 million transistors into a 1190 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 61.3M per mm². The Arc A310E uses a 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for 45.9M per mm². The MI350P's die is roughly 7.6 times larger by area and holds about ten times the transistor count.

The MI350P is built on CDNA 4.0 architecture with the MI350 128CU chip. It has 8,192 shading units and 512 TMUs, but zero ROPs. Its FP16 throughput matches FP32 at 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1), indicating a compute-focused design that does not split rate between precision formats. The memory subsystem uses HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, which explains the 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The card runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and 2200 MHz boost.

The Arc A310E uses Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. Its FP16 rate of 6.144 TFLOPS is double its FP32 rate (2:1), a typical graphics-oriented ratio. The memory bus is 64 bit with GDDR6 at 124.0 GB/s. Clocks sit at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the MI350P uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The MI350P is dual-slot and measures 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm. The Arc A310E is single-slot at 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm.

The production status also differs. The Arc A310E is marked as end-of-life and has a successor, Battlemage. The MI350P lists no production status and no successor. The MI350P's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the Arc A310E's predecessor is Xe Graphics. The MI350P has no display outputs or graphics APIs, while the Arc A310E offers four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and a full modern API set.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P delivers 8.19 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3e interface. The Intel Arc A310E provides 124.0 GB/s over a 64-bit GDDR6 bus.

Q: Can the MI350P drive a display?

A: No. The MI350P lists no display outputs and records 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, with N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. The Arc A310E has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

Q: How do the FP32 compute rates compare?

A: The MI350P reaches 36.04 TFLOPS FP32, while the Arc A310E reaches 3.072 TFLOPS FP32. The MI350P is about 11.7 times higher in this metric.

Q: What power delivery does each card require?

A: The MI350P has a 600 W TDP, uses one 16-pin connector, and suggests a 1000 W PSU. The Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP, uses no external power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The Arc A310E includes 6 ray tracing cores. The MI350P lists no ray tracing cores and no graphics API support.

Q: What are the process node and transistor counts?

A: The MI350P is on TSMC 3 nm with 73,000 million transistors. The Arc A310E is on TSMC 6 nm with 7,200 million transistors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI350P | Intel Arc A310E |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Alchemist (Arc 3) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 73,000 million | 7,200 million |

| Die size | 1190 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor density | 61.3M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2200 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 144 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 8192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 124.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 8192 | 768 |

| TMUs | 512 | 32 |

| ROPs | 0 | 16 |

| Ray tracing cores | None listed | 6 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 32.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 1,126.4 GTexel/s | 64.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 36.04 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1) | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 75 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Width | 40 mm (1.6 inches) | 20 mm (0.8 inches) |

| Production status | Not listed | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2026-05-06 | 2024-03-31 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | None listed | Battlemage |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark entries for this pair, so the comparison relies on recorded specification-level measurements. The largest single gap is memory bandwidth. The MI350P's 8.19 TB/s is 66 times the Arc A310E's 124.0 GB/s. This difference comes from the bus width: 8192 bit versus 64 bit. For workloads that stream large datasets, such as inference or scientific simulation, this gap is decisive.

FP32 throughput shows an 11.7-fold advantage for the MI350P at 36.04 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS. Texture rate follows with 1,126.4 GTexel/s against 64.00 GTexel/s, a 17.6-fold difference. The MI350P's 8,192 shading units and 512 TMUs explain these figures. The Arc A310E counters with 16 ROPs and a 32.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the MI350P has no ROPs and no pixel output.

Memory capacity is also lopsided: 144 GB versus 4 GB. The MI350P uses HBM3e, the Arc A310E uses GDDR6. The MI350P's FP16 rate equals its FP32 rate at 36.04 TFLOPS, while the Arc A310E doubles its FP32 rate to reach 6.144 TFLOPS FP16. In absolute terms, the MI350P still leads FP16 by roughly 5.9 times.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Arc A310E runs at 2000 MHz base and boost, while the MI350P runs at 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The Intel card's lower power draw, 75 W versus 600 W, and its lack of external power connectors make it deployable in environments where the MI350P cannot operate. The Arc A310E also carries full graphics API support and display outputs, which the MI350P lacks entirely.

Both cards sit at the 50th percentile in the database's all-GPU distribution, with average benchmark scores of zero. This means the percentile field does not separate them. The meaningful separation comes from the architectural and specification data above.

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI350P is for compute-heavy environments that need maximum memory capacity, bandwidth, and FP32 throughput. Its 144 GB HBM3e pool, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 make it suitable for large-scale data processing, but its 600 W TDP, 1000 W PSU requirement, and absence of display outputs restrict it to server racks and accelerator slots.

The Intel Arc A310E is for systems that need a compact, low-power graphics solution with modern API support. Its 75 W TDP, single-slot design, four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it functional for embedded visual workloads. Its end-of-life status and successor, Battlemage, indicate the product line has moved on.

No benchmark data pairs these two directly, so the verdict rests on the recorded specifications. The MI350P dominates every compute metric by wide margins: 11.7 times the FP32 throughput, 17.6 times the texture rate, and 66 times the memory bandwidth. The Arc A310E dominates every graphics-specific metric, since the MI350P has none. A buyer choosing between them is not comparing two versions of the same product. They are comparing a compute accelerator with no graphics capability against a graphics card with modest compute. The data indicates that each card wins in its own domain, and neither can substitute for the other.