AMD Instinct MI350P vs Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI350P or the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and both parts carry an average benchmark score of 0. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, which places neither part ahead of the other in the overall performance distribution.

The lack of benchmark data means the comparison must rely entirely on the technical specifications recorded in the database. The AMD part delivers a FP32 compute rating of 36.04 TFLOPS, while the Intel part is rated at 52.43 TFLOPS. That difference of 16.39 TFLOPS represents a 45.5% advantage for Intel in raw single-precision throughput. The same ratio carries over to FP16, since both parts show a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 relationship. Intel lists 52.43 TFLOPS FP16 versus AMD's 36.04 TFLOPS.

Texture processing follows a similar pattern. Intel records a texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s against AMD's 1,126.4 GTexel/s. The Intel part is 512 GTexel/s ahead, which is 45.5% higher, matching the FP32 gap exactly. Both parts show a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, which is consistent with compute-accelerator designs that lack traditional raster output stages.

Memory bandwidth tells the opposite story. AMD lists 8.19 TB/s from 144 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus. Intel records 3.21 TB/s from 128 GB of HBM2e memory on the same 8192-bit bus width. AMD's bandwidth advantage is 4.98 TB/s, or 155.1% higher than Intel's figure. The memory clock difference explains this: AMD runs its memory at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while Intel runs 1565 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective.

These two parts split the headline numbers. Intel wins compute throughput by a wide margin, while AMD wins memory bandwidth by an even wider margin. The database does not include any workload-specific benchmarks to show which advantage matters more in practice.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The chip is designated MI350 128CU. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses the Generation 12.5 architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The chip carries the Ponte Vecchio codename.

Transistor counts differ substantially. Intel integrates 100,000 million transistors on a die size of 1280 mm², giving a transistor density of 78.1 million per mm². AMD integrates 73,000 million transistors on a smaller die of 1190 mm², resulting in a density of 61.3 million per mm². Intel holds a 27,000 million transistor advantage, and its density is 16.8 million per mm² higher despite the older process node.

The compute unit layouts differ in scale. Intel has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and 128 ray tracing cores. AMD has 8,192 shading units and 512 texture mapping units, with no ray tracing cores listed. Intel's shading unit count is exactly double AMD's, and its TMU count is double as well. The ray tracing core count of 128 on Intel has no counterpart on the AMD side.

Memory architecture diverges completely. AMD uses 144 GB of HBM3e with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. Intel uses 128 GB of HBM2e with 3.21 TB/s bandwidth. Both run an 8192-bit bus, so the bandwidth difference comes from memory generation and clock speed. AMD's memory clock is 2000 MHz, while Intel's is 1565 MHz.

Clock speeds on the GPU side also differ. AMD has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. Intel has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. AMD's boost clock is 600 MHz higher, which partially offsets its lower shading unit count.

Power and cooling requirements are dramatically different. AMD is rated at 600 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 1000 W. Intel is rated at 2400 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 2800 W. Both use a single 16-pin power connector and a dual-slot cooler design. Both are 267 mm long.

API support differs. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support. AMD lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. This reflects the different intended use cases, with Intel carrying some graphics API compatibility while AMD is purely compute-focused.

Release timing also differs. Intel's production status is marked Active with a release date of January 2023. AMD's production status is not recorded, and its release date is May 2026. Intel lists a successor named H3C Graphics, while AMD lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split between compute throughput and memory capacity. Intel's Data Center GPU Max Subsystem delivers 45.5% higher FP32 and FP16 throughput at 52.43 TFLOPS versus 36.04 TFLOPS. It also has double the shading units and texture mapping units, plus 128 ray tracing cores that AMD lacks. For workloads that scale with raw FLOPs and texture throughput, the Intel part has the advantage on paper.

AMD's Instinct MI350P counters with 155.1% more memory bandwidth at 8.19 TB/s versus 3.21 TB/s, and 16 GB more memory at 144 GB versus 128 GB. The memory type is also newer, HBM3e versus HBM2e. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited or require large memory footprints, the AMD part is the stronger choice.

The power envelope is a decisive practical factor. Intel requires 2400 W TDP and a 2800 W suggested power supply. AMD requires 600 W TDP and a 1000 W suggested power supply. That is a 1800 W difference in TDP and a 1800 W difference in suggested power supply. A system built around Intel would need substantially more power delivery and cooling infrastructure.

The absence of benchmark scores in the database means no measured performance data exists for either part. The verdict must rest on the recorded specifications. Buyers prioritizing raw FP32 throughput should consider the Intel part. Buyers prioritizing memory bandwidth and power efficiency should consider the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: Intel records 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, which is 16.39 TFLOPS higher than AMD's 36.04 TFLOPS. That represents a 45.5% advantage for Intel.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: AMD lists 8.19 TB/s, while Intel lists 3.21 TB/s. AMD's bandwidth is 4.98 TB/s higher, which is 155.1% more than Intel's.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: AMD has 144 GB of HBM3e. Intel has 128 GB of HBM2e. Both use an 8192-bit bus width.

Q: What is the power draw for each part?

A: AMD has a 600 W TDP with a 1000 W suggested power supply. Intel has a 2400 W TDP with a 2800 W suggested power supply.

Q: Do either of these parts support graphics APIs?

A: Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support. AMD lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the process nodes and foundries?

A: AMD is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Intel is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry.

Where Each One Wins

Intel wins in compute throughput categories. The 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 figure exceeds AMD's 36.04 TFLOPS by 45.5%. The FP16 figure matches the FP32 ratio exactly, so Intel also leads there by the same margin. The texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s is 45.5% ahead of AMD's 1,126.4 GTexel/s. Intel also has 128 ray tracing cores, which AMD does not list at all. The shading unit count of 16,384 is double AMD's 8,192, and the TMU count of 1,024 is double AMD's 512.

AMD wins in memory and power categories. The 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is 155.1% higher than Intel's 3.21 TB/s. The 144 GB memory capacity is 16 GB larger than Intel's 128 GB. The memory type is newer, HBM3e versus HBM2e. The 600 W TDP is 1800 W lower than Intel's 2400 W TDP, and the suggested power supply of 1000 W is 1800 W lower than Intel's 2800 W. The 3 nm process node is smaller than Intel's 10 nm node, and the boost clock of 2200 MHz is 600 MHz higher.

The workload split follows these strengths. Compute-heavy workloads with high FP32 or FP16 demand align with Intel's specification sheet. Bandwidth-sensitive workloads with large memory footprints align with AMD's specification sheet. Power-constrained deployments favor AMD by a wide margin. The database contains no benchmark results to confirm which architecture translates its specifications into real-world performance.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ on nearly every recorded dimension. The process node differs: AMD uses 3 nm, Intel uses 10 nm. The foundry differs: AMD uses TSMC, Intel uses its own foundry. Transistor count differs by 27,000 million, with Intel at 100,000 million and AMD at 73,000 million. Die size differs by 90 mm², with Intel at 1280 mm² and AMD at 1190 mm². Transistor density differs by 16.8 million per mm², with Intel at 78.1M and AMD at 61.3M.

Clock speeds differ on both the GPU and memory sides. AMD runs 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Intel runs 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz for AMD and 1565 MHz for Intel. Effective memory rates are 8 Gbps for AMD and 3.1 Gbps for Intel.

Memory capacity and type differ. AMD has 144 GB of HBM3e, Intel has 128 GB of HBM2e. Both share an 8192-bit bus width. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s for AMD and 3.21 TB/s for Intel.

Compute unit counts differ. AMD has 8,192 shading units, 512 TMUs, and no ROPs or ray tracing cores. Intel has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 128 ray tracing cores. The FP32 and FP16 throughput figures are 36.04 TFLOPS for AMD and 52.43 TFLOPS for Intel, both at 1:1 ratio.

Power specifications differ substantially. AMD has 600 W TDP and a 1000 W suggested power supply. Intel has 2400 W TDP and a 2800 W suggested power supply. Both use a single 16-pin connector and a dual-slot cooler. Both are 267 mm long, but AMD records a height of 111 mm and width of 40 mm, while Intel does not record height or width.

API support differs. AMD lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan not recorded. Neither part has display outputs.

Release dates differ. AMD is dated May 2026, Intel is dated January 2023. Intel's production status is Active, AMD's is not recorded. Intel lists a successor, H3C Graphics, while AMD lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.