AMD Instinct MI350P vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI350P versus the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU. The head-to-head table is empty, and the win counters show zero for both parts. Direct comparative testing data is therefore unavailable for these two accelerators.

The only recorded benchmark score in the database belongs to the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU. It posted a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 733 points. That score places the Intel part at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning 97 percent of recorded accelerators outperform it. The AMD Instinct MI350P has no benchmark scores recorded at all, and its average benchmark score is listed as zero. Its percentile ranking sits at 50, which is a placeholder position rather than a measured result.

For context on the Intel part, its nearest rivals in the database show a tight cluster of low-end performance. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU both match the 733-point score exactly, producing a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails slightly at 723 points, a 1.4 percent deficit. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads the group with 751 points, putting the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU 2.4 percent behind. These deltas confirm that the 64EU variant sits squarely in entry-level territory, with no meaningful separation from smaller Intel configurations or decade-old discrete mobile parts.

Because the AMD Instinct MI350P lacks any recorded benchmarks, no direct numerical comparison can be made between the two products. The Intel part's single score stands as the only quantitative performance data point in this pairing. The AMD accelerator's absence of scores means any performance comparison would require speculation, which the data does not support.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators target fundamentally different workloads, and their architecture choices reflect that divide. The AMD Instinct MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm TSMC process. The chip, labeled MI350 128CU, packs 73,000 million transistors into a 1190 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 61.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture, also on a 3 nm TSMC process, but with a dramatically smaller footprint. Its Arrow Lake-S chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, producing a density of 73.3 million transistors per square millimeter. Despite the smaller absolute transistor count, the Intel die achieves a higher packing density.

Memory architecture separates the two products even more sharply. The AMD Instinct MI350P carries 144 GB of HBM3e memory across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective transfer. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses system shared memory, with the bus width, type, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. This means the Intel part has no dedicated memory of its own and relies entirely on the host system's main memory, which creates a fundamental bandwidth limitation compared to the AMD part's dedicated high-bandwidth stack.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The AMD part has 8192 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. Its pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s, a consequence of its compute-focused design with no display output path. Texture rate reaches 1,126.4 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 36.04 TFLOPS, and FP16 throughput matches at 36.04 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 30.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 60.80 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1.946 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 3.891 TFLOPS in a 2:1 ratio. The AMD accelerator delivers roughly 18.5 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part, based on the recorded figures.

Clock behavior also reflects their different design goals. The AMD part has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. The AMD part's higher base clock suggests a design tuned for sustained throughput, while the Intel part's lower base clock indicates power-sensitive operation. Thermal design power confirms this: the AMD part consumes 600 W, while the Intel part draws 65 W. The AMD accelerator requires a 1000 W suggested power supply and a single 16-pin connector, while the Intel part is an integrated graphics processor with no separate power connectors.

API support diverges completely. The AMD Instinct MI350P lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all as N/A, confirming it is not a consumer graphics product. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a fully capable modern graphics solution for gaming and general rendering workloads. Display outputs follow the same pattern: the AMD part has no outputs, while the Intel part's outputs are motherboard dependent. Physical dimensions are recorded only for the AMD part, which measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, with a dual-slot cooler. The Intel part is an IGP with no recorded dimensions.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two products with no meaningful overlap in purpose or performance envelope. The AMD Instinct MI350P is a data center accelerator with no benchmark scores, no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 600 W power envelope. Its 8192 shading units, 144 GB of HBM3e memory, and 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth position it for compute-heavy workloads such as large-scale model training or scientific simulation. The lack of recorded benchmarks means its actual performance cannot be quantified from the database, but its architectural specifications place it in a completely different class from the Intel part.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is an integrated graphics processor aimed at consumer desktop systems. Its single recorded benchmark of 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it at the 3rd percentile, with nearest rivals all within a few points. This is entry-level graphics performance, suitable for basic desktop acceleration, light gaming at low settings, or media playback. Its 65 W TDP and motherboard-dependent display outputs confirm its role as an IGP within a larger processor package.

For a user with a compute workload that requires massive memory bandwidth and thousands of compute units, the AMD part is the only choice between these two. For a user building a mainstream desktop system that needs standard graphics API support and modest 3D performance, the Intel part is the practical option. The data shows no scenario where these two products compete directly. They serve different markets, different software stacks, and different power budgets. The AMD part's zero benchmark scores and N/A API support make it unsuitable for consumer graphics, while the Intel part's 733-point score and 3rd percentile ranking make it unsuitable for high-performance compute.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI350P | Intel Arc Graphics 64EU |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | Xe-LPG |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake) |

| Transistors | 73,000 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 1190 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 61.3M / mm² | 73.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 144 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 8192 | 512 |

| TMUs | 512 | 32 |

| ROPs | 0 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 30.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,126.4 GTexel/s | 60.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 36.04 TFLOPS | 1.946 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1) | 3.891 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2026-05-06 | 2024-10-23 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | HD Graphics |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

FAQ

Q: What is the single benchmark score recorded for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU scored 733 points in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350P have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database lists no benchmarks for the AMD Instinct MI350P, and its average benchmark score is zero.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It matches the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU at 733 points each, is 1.4 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6470M at 723 points, and is 2.4 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M at 751 points.

Q: What memory does the AMD Instinct MI350P use?

A: It uses 144 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What memory does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU use?

A: It uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: What graphics APIs does the AMD Instinct MI350P support?

A: DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all listed as N/A for the AMD Instinct MI350P.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350P wins in every compute-oriented category that the database records. Its 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarfs the Intel part's 1.946 TFLOPS, a ratio of roughly 18.5 to 1. Its texture rate of 1,126.4 GTexel/s exceeds the Intel part's 60.80 GTexel/s by a similar margin. Memory capacity and bandwidth are not comparable: 144 GB of HBM3e at 8.19 TB/s versus system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The AMD part's 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs provide the raw resources for large parallel workloads. Its 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested PSU indicate a design that prioritizes throughput over efficiency. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides a high-bandwidth host connection.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU wins in every consumer-facing category. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, none of which the AMD part offers. Its 16 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 30.40 GPixel/s, while the AMD part records 0 MPixel/s. Its 65 W TDP makes it suitable for integration into a desktop processor package with no discrete power connectors. The Ring Bus interface integrates directly with the host processor, and motherboard dependent display outputs allow for standard monitor connectivity. Its release date of 2024-10-23 is earlier than the AMD part's 2026-05-06, and its production status is listed as active, while the AMD part's production status is not recorded.

For workloads involving 3D rendering, gaming, or general desktop graphics, the Intel part is the only option with functional support. For workloads involving massive parallel compute with no display requirements, the AMD part offers the resources. The data shows no overlap: the AMD part cannot render frames, and the Intel part cannot approach the AMD part's compute throughput. Each product wins in its designated domain, and the specification differences make that division absolute.