AMD Instinct MI350P vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI350P and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. Both products register an average benchmark score of 0, and neither has any listed benchmark entries in the database. The win counts for both sides are zero, indicating that no direct performance measurements have been captured for this pairing.

This absence of measured results is itself informative. The two accelerators occupy vastly different segments, and the database shows no overlapping workload tests. The AMD Instinct MI350P carries a percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs, as does the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, but this percentile reflects their positions within entirely separate performance distributions, not a shared comparison set.

Without direct scores, the raw compute specifications provide the only measurable basis for differentiation. The AMD part delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel part delivers 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32. That places the AMD accelerator at roughly 94 times the raw FP32 throughput of the Intel integrated graphics, based strictly on the recorded figures. For FP16, the AMD part again shows 36.04 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which means the AMD part holds a similar multiplier in half-precision work.

Texture and pixel rates reinforce the gap. The AMD accelerator reaches 1,126.4 GTexel/s, compared to 12.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a factor of roughly 94. The pixel rate tells a different story: the AMD part is recorded at 0 MPixel/s, while the Intel part manages 4.000 GPixel/s. That anomaly stems from the AMD design having zero ROPs, a deliberate architectural choice for compute-oriented workloads, whereas the Intel design includes 4 ROPs for display and rasterization duties.

The FP32 and FP16 figures alone suggest that any common benchmark would show an overwhelming advantage for the AMD Instinct MI350P in raw compute. The database, however, has not yet recorded such a comparison, so any quantitative head-to-head statement must remain limited to the specification-derived deltas above.

Architecture Differences

The two chips could hardly be more different in design philosophy. The AMD Instinct MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built for data center acceleration, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture, designed for low-power integrated graphics in portable devices.

Manufacturing processes diverge sharply. AMD fabricates the MI350 128CU chip on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Intel builds the Twin Lake chip on a 10 nm process at its own foundry. The AMD chip packs 73,000 million transistors into a 1190 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 61.3 million transistors per square millimeter. Intel does not disclose transistor count, die size, or density for the Twin Lake part, so no direct comparison is possible on those metrics.

The compute pipelines reflect different priorities. The AMD accelerator contains 8,192 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The Intel part contains 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The absence of ROPs in the AMD design indicates that it does not perform traditional rasterization output operations, consistent with a compute-first accelerator that has no display outputs. The Intel part, by contrast, supports portable device display outputs and includes the ROPs needed for rendering to screens.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD chip runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and boosts to 2200 MHz. The Intel chip runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 1000 MHz. Memory clocks show an even wider spread: the AMD part uses 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel part relies on system shared memory with no dedicated clock.

Memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The AMD Instinct MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all marked as system dependent. No fixed figures exist for the Intel side.

Power and physical design follow suit. The AMD accelerator has a 600 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, a single 16-pin power connector, and a suggested 1000 W power supply. It measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Intel part has a 6 W TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no recorded dimensions. The AMD card uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Intel part connects via Ring Bus.

API support shows another split. The AMD accelerator reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no graphics API support. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release timing differs by about a year and a half. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile was released on 2024-12-31, while the AMD Instinct MI350P has a release date of 2026-05-06. The AMD part lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct, while the Intel part has no predecessor recorded.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these two products serve entirely different purposes and should not be considered substitutes. The AMD Instinct MI350P is a data center accelerator with 144 GB of HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, and 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is a 6 W integrated graphics solution with 192 shading units, system shared memory, and 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute.

For compute-intensive workloads such as large-scale matrix operations, the AMD part delivers roughly 94 times the FP32 throughput and 47 times the FP16 throughput of the Intel part, based on the recorded specifications. The AMD accelerator also offers 8192-bit memory bandwidth, which the Intel part cannot match because its bandwidth is system dependent.

For portable devices that need basic display output and low power consumption, the Intel part has clear advantages. Its 6 W TDP fits within the thermal envelope of thin-and-light systems, while the AMD part demands 600 W and a dual-slot cooler. The Intel part supports DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD part has no graphics API support at all.

The database records no direct benchmark comparisons, so users must rely on the architectural and specification differences above. The AMD Instinct MI350P is for server-class acceleration with no display outputs. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is for integrated graphics in portable devices with system-dependent memory performance.

FAQ

Q: Which product has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. The AMD part is roughly 94 times higher.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350P support DirectX?

A: No. The database records DirectX as N/A for the AMD part, along with OpenGL and Vulkan also marked as N/A. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory does each product have?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: What are the TDP values for each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P has a 600 W TDP. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a 6 W TDP.

Q: Which product has display outputs?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P has no display outputs. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has display outputs described as portable device dependent.

Q: What manufacturing process does each chip use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350P wins in raw compute throughput. Its 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures dwarf the Intel part's 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 768.0 GFLOPS FP16. The texture rate of 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s shows the AMD part's advantage in texture-heavy compute workloads. The 144 GB HBM3e memory with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth provides a massive memory pool and data movement capability that the Intel part cannot approach, since its memory bandwidth is system dependent.

The AMD part also wins in memory capacity and bandwidth by a wide margin. The 8192-bit bus width and 144 GB capacity serve large data sets in training and inference workloads. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides high host connectivity, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus connection.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 6 W TDP allows operation in portable devices without active cooling, while the AMD part requires 600 W, a dual-slot cooler, and a 1000 W suggested power supply. The Intel part's IGP form factor means no additional card dimensions or power connectors are needed.

The Intel part wins in graphics API support. DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 enable rendering and display workloads, while the AMD part reports N/A for all three APIs. The Intel part's 4 ROPs and 4.000 GPixel/s pixel rate allow actual framebuffer output, while the AMD part has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate.

The Intel part also wins on release timing, having launched on 2024-12-31, while the AMD part arrives on 2026-05-06.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI350P | Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | Xe-LP |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 73,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1190 mm² | unknown |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 1000 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 | 192 |

| TMUs | 512 | 12 |

| ROPs | 0 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 4.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,126.4 GTexel/s | 12.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 36.04 TFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1) | 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 6 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 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm | Not recorded |

| Height | 111 mm | Not recorded |

| Width | 40 mm | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2026-05-06 | 2024-12-31 |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |