AMD Instinct MI350P vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data draws a clear split between these two accelerators, and neither dominates across every relevant category. The AMD Instinct MI350P wins in memory capacity, memory bandwidth, process technology, and power efficiency relative to its performance class. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins in raw compute throughput, texture rate, shading unit count, and API support.

For workloads that depend on memory footprint and data movement, the AMD part is the stronger choice. It carries 144 GB of HBM3e memory with 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, compared to Intel's 96 GB of HBM2e at 2.46 TB/s. That is a 50% capacity advantage and a 3.33 times bandwidth advantage for AMD. Large language model inference, scientific simulation, and graph analytics that exceed 96 GB working sets will simply not fit on the Intel part, while the AMD accelerator has room to spare. The bandwidth gap also means that even for workloads that fit in both memories, the AMD device can feed its compute units at a much higher rate, reducing the likelihood of memory-bound stalls.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350, however, posts higher peak floating-point numbers. It delivers 44.44 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the AMD Instinct MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS in both formats. That puts Intel roughly 23% ahead in raw FP32 and FP16 throughput. The Intel part also has a higher texture rate at 1,388.8 GTexel/s versus 1,126.4 GTexel/s for AMD, a 23% advantage. Shader-heavy workloads that are not memory-limited, such as certain dense linear algebra kernels or image processing pipelines, will favor the Intel accelerator.

The AMD part wins on manufacturing and power draw. It uses a 3 nm process from TSMC with 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, while Intel uses a 10 nm process with 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. Despite having fewer transistors, AMD achieves a higher memory bandwidth per watt and a much larger memory capacity per watt. The AMD card has a 600 W TDP versus Intel's 450 W TDP, but the performance-per-watt picture is nuanced: AMD's memory bandwidth per watt is 13.65 GB/s per watt, Intel's is 5.47 GB/s per watt. AMD's FP32 per watt is 60.07 GFLOPS/W, Intel's is 98.76 GFLOPS/W. So Intel is more compute-efficient, AMD is more memory-efficient.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Instinct MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, a compute-optimized design with no display outputs and no consumer graphics API support. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 uses Generation 12.5 architecture (Ponte Vecchio) and is the only one of the two with any graphics API exposure: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while AMD lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

The chip-level differences are substantial. AMD's chip is labeled "MI350 128CU" and packs 8,192 shading units with 512 texture mapping units. Intel's chip is Ponte Vecchio with 14,336 shading units and 896 texture mapping units, which explains its higher texture rate. Intel also includes 112 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD part (the data shows rtCores as null for AMD). Neither part has any ROPs, and both report a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming these are not rasterization-focused products.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The AMD part uses HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses HBM2e with the same 8192-bit bus width but only 2.46 TB/s bandwidth. The bus width is identical, so the bandwidth difference comes entirely from the memory generation and clock speed. AMD runs memory at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, Intel runs at 1200 MHz with 2.4 Gbps effective.

Clock speeds also differ meaningfully. AMD has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz. Intel has a base of 750 MHz and a boost of 1550 MHz. The AMD boost clock is 42% higher than Intel's, yet Intel still achieves higher peak FP32 because of its much larger shader count. The transistor density figures reflect the process gap: AMD's 3 nm node yields 61.3M transistors per mm², Intel's 10 nm node yields 78.1M per mm². The higher density on Intel's older node is due to the chiplet packaging approach of Ponte Vecchio, which packs more silicon area (1280 mm² versus 1190 mm²) with a different transistor mix.

Physical form factors differ as well. AMD is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, requiring a 1000 W suggested PSU with a single 16-pin power connector. Intel is an OAM module with no listed dimensions and no power connector data, requiring an 850 W suggested PSU. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 as the host interface, and both lack display outputs. The Intel part is marked as Active in production status and has a successor (H3C Graphics), while AMD's production status is not listed and its predecessor is Radeon Instinct.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Instinct MI350P is the choice for memory-capacity-bound and memory-bandwidth-bound workloads. Its 144 GB HBM3e at 8.19 TB/s is a decisive advantage over Intel's 96 GB HBM2e at 2.46 TB/s. Any workload where the working set exceeds 96 GB, or where data movement dominates compute, will see a dramatic benefit from the AMD part. The 3 nm process also suggests better memory efficiency and a more modern manufacturing base.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 is the choice for compute-throughput-bound workloads that fit within 96 GB of memory. Its 44.44 TFLOPS FP32/FP16 output exceeds AMD's 36.04 TFLOPS by 23%, and its texture rate is likewise 23% higher. The Intel part also has API support for DirectX 12 and OpenGL, which may matter for mixed workloads that need some graphics capability, though both parts lack display outputs.

Neither part has a benchmark score in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 0. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, so the verdict rests entirely on specification analysis. The release dates clarify the product cycle: Intel launched on 2023-01-09, AMD launches on 2026-05-06. The AMD part is a newer design on a newer process, which explains its memory advantages. The Intel part is older but still holds a compute edge.

For a datacenter operator selecting between these two, the decision hinges on the workload's memory profile. If the model or dataset fits in 96 GB and the bottleneck is compute, Intel delivers more FLOPs per watt (98.76 GFLOPS/W versus 60.07 GFLOPS/W) and a lower absolute TDP (450 W versus 600 W). If the workload needs more than 96 GB or is memory-bandwidth-sensitive, AMD's 8.19 TB/s is unmatched in this comparison and its 144 GB capacity removes capacity constraints entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has more memory?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has 96 GB of HBM2e. AMD leads by 50% in capacity.

Q: Which one has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 delivers 44.44 TFLOPS FP32, which is 23% higher than the AMD Instinct MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS.

Q: Do these cards support graphics APIs?

A: The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Neither has display outputs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: AMD's HBM3e provides 8.19 TB/s, while Intel's HBM2e provides 2.46 TB/s. AMD has 3.33 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card uses a newer manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Q: Are there ray tracing cores in either accelerator?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 includes 112 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI350P has no ray tracing cores listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark scores for either part, so the comparison relies on specification-derived metrics. The clearest wins are as follows.

Memory bandwidth is the largest single gap. AMD's 8.19 TB/s versus Intel's 2.46 TB/s means AMD moves data at 3.33 times the rate. For a memory-bound kernel that runs in one second on AMD, the same kernel with the same compute efficiency would take over three seconds on Intel, assuming it fits in Intel's smaller 96 GB pool. This is the defining advantage of the AMD part.

Memory capacity follows closely. AMD's 144 GB exceeds Intel's 96 GB by 48 GB, a 50% increase. Workloads with working sets between 96 GB and 144 GB are simply impossible on Intel and run on AMD. Even workloads that fit in 96 GB may benefit from AMD's larger capacity if they need to hold multiple copies or intermediate buffers.

FP32 and FP16 throughput favor Intel. Both parts report a 1:1 ratio between FP32 and FP16, so the peak numbers are identical across those formats. Intel's 44.44 TFLOPS beats AMD's 36.04 TFLOPS by 8.4 TFLOPS, a 23% margin. This is the headline compute advantage for Intel, and it is substantial enough to matter for dense, compute-heavy kernels.

Texture rate also favors Intel. Intel's 1,388.8 GTexel/s versus AMD's 1,126.4 GTexel/s is a 23% difference, exactly matching the FP32 ratio. This is consistent with the shader count difference: Intel has 14,336 shading units versus AMD's 8,192, a 75% higher count, but AMD's higher boost clock (2200 MHz versus 1550 MHz) partially compensates.

Clock speeds favor AMD. The AMD part boosts to 2200 MHz versus Intel's 1550 MHz, a 42% advantage. AMD's base clock of 1000 MHz is also 33% higher than Intel's 750 MHz. However, Intel's larger shader array overcomes the clock deficit in peak throughput.

Transistor counts favor Intel in absolute terms: 100,000 million versus 73,000 million, a 37% advantage. Die size is also larger on Intel: 1280 mm² versus 1190 mm², an 8% difference. The transistor density figures show Intel at 78.1M per mm² versus AMD's 61.3M per mm², which is counterintuitive given AMD's newer 3 nm node, but the data is what it is.

Power draw favors Intel in absolute terms. Intel's TDP is 450 W versus AMD's 600 W, a 25% reduction. However, the suggested PSU ratings are 850 W for Intel and 1000 W for AMD, reflecting the power delivery requirements. In compute efficiency, Intel delivers 98.76 GFLOPS/W versus AMD's 60.07 GFLOPS/W, making Intel 64% more efficient in FP32 per watt. In memory efficiency, AMD delivers 13.65 GB/s per watt versus Intel's 5.47 GB/s per watt, making AMD 2.5 times more efficient in bandwidth per watt.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every specification field. The table below shows only the fields where the values differ.

| Field | AMD Instinct MI350P | Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | Generation 12.5 |

| Process node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 73,000 million | 100,000 million |

| Die size | 1190 mm² | 1280 mm² |

| Transistor density | 61.3M / mm² | 78.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 750 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2200 MHz | 1550 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 1200 MHz, 2.4 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 144 GB | 96 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3e | HBM2e |

| Memory bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 2.46 TB/s |

| Shading units | 8,192 | 14,336 |

| TMUs | 512 | 896 |

| RT cores | None | 112 |

| Texture rate | 1,126.4 GTexel/s | 1,388.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 36.04 TFLOPS | 44.44 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1) | 44.44 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 450 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | OAM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 850 W |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

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

| Release date | 2026-05-06 | 2023-01-09 |

| Production status | Not listed | Active |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | None |

| Successor | None | H3C Graphics |

Fields that are identical: both use PCIe 5.0 x16, both have an 8192-bit memory bus, both have 0 ROPs, both report 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, both have no display outputs, and both have no launch MSRP in the database. The Intel part has a Vulkan API field that is null, while AMD's Vulkan is N/A. Neither part has tensor cores listed, and neither has a game clock.