AMD Instinct MI350P vs Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI350P and the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile. Both products hold identical percentile positions at 50 against all GPUs, and both have an average benchmark score of zero. This indicates that neither part has been subjected to standardized testing within the database, leaving any performance differential to be derived entirely from their architectural specifications rather than measured outcomes.

The absence of head-to-head results means the raw compute figures must serve as the primary comparison. The AMD Instinct MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile produces 3.942 TFLOPS. This represents a 9.14x advantage for the AMD part in single-precision throughput. In FP16 workloads, the AMD accelerator outputs 36.04 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel mobile GPU reaches 7.885 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part leads by approximately 4.57x in half-precision compute.

Texture throughput further separates the two. The MI350P achieves 1,126.4 GTexel/s against 123.2 GTexel/s for the Arc part, a 9.14x margin that mirrors the FP32 gap. Pixel rate tells a different story, the Intel GPU manages 52.80 GPixel/s while the AMD accelerator records 0 MPixel/s, as it has no raster output units and no display outputs. This makes the pixel-rate comparison moot for the MI350P, which is not designed for traditional graphics rendering.

The FP32 and texture-rate advantages are direct consequences of the shading unit counts. The MI350P packs 8,192 shading units and 512 texture mapping units. The Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile contains 896 shading units and 56 TMUs. Both scale linearly with their respective architectures, confirming that the AMD part's 9.14x lead in both metrics stems from its 9.14x larger shader array.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is fundamental. The AMD Instinct MI350P uses CDNA 4.0 architecture, a compute-optimized design built for data center acceleration. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses Xe-LPG architecture, a graphics-focused design intended for mobile integration. These are not competing in the same product category; the MI350P targets server accelerators, while the Arc part is an integrated GPU for laptops.

Manufacturing processes differ substantially. The AMD chip is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, packing 73,000 million transistors onto a 1190 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 61.3 million per square millimeter. The Intel part uses a 10 nm process at Intel foundries, with no transistor count or die size recorded. The process node advantage for AMD translates directly into the density figures, though the Intel part's smaller scale makes direct comparison of manufacturing efficiency difficult without those data points.

The MI350P uses the MI350 128CU chip, while the Arc part uses the Meteor Lake chip. Both share a 2200 MHz boost clock, but the base clocks diverge sharply. The AMD accelerator idles at 1000 MHz, while the Intel mobile GPU has a 300 MHz base. Memory architecture is where the two diverge completely. The MI350P features 144 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile relies on System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as System Dependent. The memory clock on the AMD part runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the Intel part has no dedicated memory clock, using the system's shared pool.

API support further separates them. The Intel GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD accelerator lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming it is not a graphics-oriented product. The MI350P has no display outputs, while the Arc part's outputs are Portable Device Dependent. The bus interface also differs, with the MI350P using PCIe 5.0 x16 and the Arc part using Ring Bus.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350P wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 36.04 TFLOPS is 9.14x higher than the Intel part's 3.942 TFLOPS. FP16 performance shows a 4.57x advantage at 36.04 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS. Texture rate favors the MI350P at 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is not comparable in numeric terms, but the 8.19 TB/s of HBM3e vastly exceeds a system-shared arrangement. The AMD part also carries a substantially larger transistor budget at 73,000 million, enabling its 8,192 shading units.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile wins in pixel throughput and API compatibility. It delivers 52.80 GPixel/s, while the MI350P records 0 MPixel/s due to having no ROPs. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it usable for graphics workloads. The MI350P has no API support listed, rendering it unsuitable for traditional rendering tasks. The Intel GPU also operates at a 65 W TDP versus 600 W for the AMD accelerator, though the MI350P's power draw is consistent with a dual-slot data center card.

The Intel part wins on integration and portability. It is an IGP with no dedicated power connectors, no suggested PSU requirement, and no physical dimensions recorded. The MI350P requires a dual-slot chassis, a 16-pin power connector, and a 1000 W suggested power supply. The Arc part is designed for mobile deployment, while the MI350P is a server accelerator with a 267 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width.

Specification Differences

Clock specifications show both parts share a 2200 MHz boost, but the base clocks differ at 1000 MHz for the MI350P and 300 MHz for the Arc part. Memory size and type differ completely: 144 GB HBM3e versus System Shared. Bus width is 8192 bit versus System Shared. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus System Dependent. Shading units are 8,192 versus 896. TMUs are 512 versus 56. ROPs are 0 versus 24. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32 is 36.04 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS. FP16 is 36.04 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS. TDP is 600 W versus 65 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors are 1x 16-pin versus none. Suggested PSU is 1000 W versus none. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs are none versus Portable Device Dependent. Process node is 3 nm versus 10 nm. Foundry is TSMC versus Intel. Release dates are 2026-05-06 versus 2023-12-13.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS, which is 9.14x the 3.942 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350P support graphics APIs?

A: No. The MI350P lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and it has no display outputs. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory difference between the two?

A: The MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e on a 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc part uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do the TDP figures compare?

A: The MI350P has a 600 W TDP and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has a 65 W TDP with no power connector or PSU requirement listed.

Q: Which product is newer?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P has a release date of 2026-05-06. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile was released on 2023-12-13.

Q: Can the MI350P render graphics at any pixel rate?

A: The MI350P records 0 MPixel/s pixel rate and has 0 ROPs. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile achieves 52.80 GPixel/s with 24 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products with no functional overlap. The AMD Instinct MI350P is a compute accelerator for data center workloads, evidenced by its CDNA 4.0 architecture, 144 GB HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and absence of graphics APIs or display outputs. Its 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance, along with 1,126.4 GTexel/s texture rate, positions it for high-throughput compute tasks. The 600 W TDP and 1000 W PSU requirement confirm a server-class deployment.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is an integrated GPU for mobile systems. Its Xe-LPG architecture, DirectX 12 (12_1) support, and 52.80 GPixel/s pixel rate make it suitable for graphics rendering on portable devices. The 65 W TDP and IGP slot width fit within a laptop power envelope. Its 3.942 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.885 TFLOPS FP16 are modest but appropriate for its class.

The 9.14x FP32 gap and 4.57x FP16 gap favor the MI350P for compute, but the MI350P cannot perform any graphics function that the Arc part handles. The choice between these is not a performance trade-off but a category decision. The data shows the MI350P for compute acceleration, the Arc part for graphics output. Neither product serves the other's primary function. The identical 50th percentile ranking against all GPUs reflects the lack of benchmark data rather than equivalence, as both have zero average benchmark scores. The recorded specifications define their separate roles.