AMD Instinct MI350P vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two accelerators with fundamentally different design priorities. The AMD Instinct MI350P is positioned as a high-bandwidth, high-throughput compute engine built on a 3 nm process from TSMC, delivering 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 and 36.04 TFLOPS FP16. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100, based on the Ponte Vecchio architecture on a 10 nm Intel process, delivers 22.22 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.22 TFLOPS FP16. The AMD part offers 62% more FP32 throughput and 62% more FP16 throughput than the Intel part, based on the recorded figures. For workloads that scale with raw compute and memory bandwidth, the MI350P is the stronger choice. The Intel part, with its lower 300 W TDP and support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, remains viable for environments that require those APIs or that prioritize lower power draw. The data does not include benchmark scores for either product, so the verdict rests on specification-derived capabilities, not measured performance.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI350P uses CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses Generation 12.5 architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. The transistor densities differ: 61.3 million per mm² for the AMD part, 78.1 million per mm² for the Intel part. The AMD chip is labeled "MI350 128CU," while the Intel chip is labeled "Ponte Vecchio."

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e memory, also on an 8192-bit bus, but with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD part provides 3 times the memory capacity and roughly 6.66 times the bandwidth. The AMD memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the Intel memory clock is 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective). The bus width is identical at 8192 bit, but the memory type and clock differences account for the large bandwidth gap.

Compute resources also differ. The MI350P has 8192 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Intel Max 1100 has 7168 shading units, 448 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 56 ray tracing cores. The AMD part has 14% more shading units and 14% more TMUs. The Intel part includes ray tracing cores, which the AMD part does not list. Texture rates reflect the compute difference: 1,126.4 GTexel/s for the AMD part versus 694.4 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 62% advantage. Pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s for both, as neither has display outputs.

Power and cooling specifications differ. The MI350P has a 600 W TDP, a 1000 W suggested PSU, and a 1x 16-pin power connector. The Intel Max 1100 has a 300 W TDP, a 700 W suggested PSU, and a 1x 12-pin power connector. Both are dual-slot cards. Dimensions: the MI350P is 267 mm long, 111 mm high, and 40 mm wide. The Intel card is 267 mm long, with height and width not listed.

API support differs. The Intel part lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Intel part has a production status of "Active," while the AMD part has no production status listed. Release dates differ: the Intel part was released on January 9, 2023, while the AMD part is dated May 6, 2026. The Intel part has a listed successor, "H3C Graphics," while the AMD part has a predecessor, "Radeon Instinct."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either product, so no head-to-head wins can be derived from direct measurements. The wins in each category must be inferred from specification data. The AMD part wins decisively in FP32 and FP16 compute, delivering 36.04 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS in both precisions. That is a 62% lead. Texture rate also favors the AMD part: 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s, again a 62% lead. Memory bandwidth is the largest gap: 8.19 TB/s versus 1.23 TB/s, meaning the AMD part has 5.66 times the bandwidth of the Intel part. Memory capacity favors the AMD part at 144 GB versus 48 GB, a 3 times difference.

The Intel part wins in transistor count, with 100,000 million transistors versus 73,000 million, though the AMD part achieves higher performance on a smaller transistor budget. The Intel part also has a higher transistor density at 78.1M per mm² versus 61.3M per mm². The Intel part has ray tracing cores (56) while the AMD part lists none. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the AMD part lists no API support. The Intel part has a lower TDP at 300 W versus 600 W, and a lower suggested PSU at 700 W versus 1000 W. The Intel part was released earlier, on January 9, 2023, versus May 6, 2026 for the AMD part.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every major category. Process node: 3 nm (AMD) versus 10 nm (Intel). Transistor count: 73,000 million (AMD) versus 100,000 million (Intel). Die size: 1190 mm² (AMD) versus 1280 mm² (Intel). Transistor density: 61.3M / mm² (AMD) versus 78.1M / mm² (Intel). Base clock is identical at 1000 MHz for both. Boost clock: 2200 MHz (AMD) versus 1550 MHz (Intel). Memory clock: 2000 MHz (AMD) versus 600 MHz (Intel). Memory size: 144 GB (AMD) versus 48 GB (Intel). Memory type: HBM3e (AMD) versus HBM2e (Intel). Memory bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s (AMD) versus 1.23 TB/s (Intel). Shading units: 8192 (AMD) versus 7168 (Intel). TMUs: 512 (AMD) versus 448 (Intel). ROPs: 0 for both. Ray tracing cores: none listed (AMD) versus 56 (Intel). Texture rate: 1,126.4 GTexel/s (AMD) versus 694.4 GTexel/s (Intel). FP32 and FP16: 36.04 TFLOPS (AMD) versus 22.22 TFLOPS (Intel). TDP: 600 W (AMD) versus 300 W (Intel). Power connector: 1x 16-pin (AMD) versus 1x 12-pin (Intel). Suggested PSU: 1000 W (AMD) versus 700 W (Intel). API support: N/A (AMD) versus DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 (Intel). Production status: not listed (AMD) versus Active (Intel). Release date: May 6, 2026 (AMD) versus January 9, 2023 (Intel). Successor: none (AMD) versus H3C Graphics (Intel). Predecessor: Radeon Instinct (AMD) versus none (Intel).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD part has a 62% advantage.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e memory. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e memory. The AMD part has 3 times the capacity.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P provides 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 provides 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD part has 5.66 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports more APIs?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD Instinct MI350P lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P has a 600 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has a 300 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 700 W.

Q: Does either GPU have ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 56 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI350P does not list any ray tracing cores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350P wins in raw compute throughput. Its 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures are 62% higher than the Intel part's 22.22 TFLOPS. The texture rate follows the same pattern, 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s. The memory subsystem is the defining advantage: 144 GB of HBM3e at 8.19 TB/s versus 48 GB of HBM2e at 1.23 TB/s. For workloads that saturate memory bandwidth, such as large matrix operations or data-intensive inference, the AMD part has a clear theoretical edge. The higher boost clock of 2200 MHz versus 1550 MHz further contributes to its compute advantage. The AMD part also has more shading units (8192 versus 7168) and more TMUs (512 versus 448).

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins in power efficiency and API compatibility. Its 300 W TDP is half the AMD part's 600 W TDP, and its suggested PSU is 700 W versus 1000 W. For installations with power constraints or limited PSU capacity, the Intel part is the more feasible option. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, which the AMD part does not list. That makes the Intel part the only choice among the two for environments that require those APIs. The Intel part has 56 ray tracing cores, which the AMD part lacks, suggesting a capability for ray-traced workloads, though no benchmark data confirms its effectiveness. The Intel part also has a higher transistor count (100,000 million versus 73,000 million) and a higher transistor density (78.1M / mm² versus 61.3M / mm²), indicating a more compact logic layout, though the AMD part achieves higher performance per transistor based on the recorded TFLOPS figures. The Intel part was released earlier, on January 9, 2023, and has an active production status, which may matter for procurement decisions.