AMD Instinct MI350P vs NVIDIA Jetson T4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI350P or the NVIDIA Jetson T4000. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0 and an empty head-to-head results table, with zero wins recorded for each side. This absence of measured performance data means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural specifications and calculated throughput figures recorded in the database.

The raw compute metrics show a substantial gap between the two parts. The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 operations, while the Jetson T4000 provides 4.700 TFLOPS in both precision modes. That places the AMD accelerator at roughly 7.7 times the raw floating-point throughput of the NVIDIA module, a difference driven primarily by the massive disparity in shading units: 8192 on the MI350P versus 1536 on the T4000. Texture rate follows a similar pattern, with the MI350P reaching 1,126.4 GTexel/s against 73.44 GTexel/s for the T4000, a ratio of approximately 15 to 1.

Memory bandwidth amplifies the separation further. The MI350P uses HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus to achieve 8.19 TB/s, whereas the T4000 relies on LPDDR5X over a 256-bit interface for 273.2 GB/s. The bandwidth difference is roughly 30-fold, which has direct implications for workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound. The MI350P also carries 144 GB of memory versus 64 GB on the T4000, giving it more than double the capacity for large models or datasets.

Pixel rate is the one metric where the T4000 records a non-zero value: 24.48 GPixel/s, while the MI350P shows 0 MPixel/s, reflecting the absence of ROPs on the AMD part. The T4000 includes 16 ROPs, 12 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores, while the MI350P lists null for RT and tensor cores and 0 ROPs. These differences indicate distinct design intents, but the absence of benchmark results means no measured performance verification exists in the database to confirm how these specifications translate into real-world application results.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD Instinct MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 uses the Blackwell architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 5 nm node. The MI350P carries the chip designation MI350 128CU and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the T4000 uses the GB10B chip and belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation.

Transistor counts differ sharply in the database records. The MI350P lists 73,000 million transistors on a die size of 1190 mm², yielding a transistor density of 61.3 million per square millimeter. The T4000 lists an unknown transistor count, but its die size is 391 mm², roughly one-third the area of the AMD part. The density figure for the T4000 is not recorded, so no direct density comparison is possible from the available data.

Memory architecture separates the two designs completely. The MI350P uses HBM3e with 144 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus width, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The T4000 uses LPDDR5X with 64 GB capacity, a 256-bit bus, and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part also uses a different memory clock scheme: 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective transfer, while the T4000 runs memory at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. The bus width difference of 32 to 1 is the primary driver of the bandwidth gap.

Clock behavior also diverges. The MI350P has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, indicating a variable frequency design that can scale under load. The T4000 runs at a fixed 1530 MHz for both base and boost, suggesting a locked operating point suited for consistent power draw in embedded or edge deployments. The T4000's 90 W TDP contrasts with the MI350P's 600 W TDP, and the power delivery systems match: the MI350P uses a single 16-pin connector with a suggested 1000 W PSU, while the T4000 has no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU.

Physical form factors reflect their intended environments. The MI350P is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, using PCIe 5.0 x16. The T4000 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) module measuring 87 mm by 100 mm by 15 mm, using PCIe 5.0 x8. Neither device has display outputs, and both list N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan API support, confirming they are compute-only accelerators.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two devices built for different segments of the accelerator market. The AMD Instinct MI350P, with its 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth, 144 GB capacity, and 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, is positioned for large-scale compute workloads where memory capacity and bandwidth dominate. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000, with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, 64 GB capacity, and 4.700 TFLOPS, targets a power-constrained or space-constrained environment where the 90 W TDP and compact IGP form factor are decisive advantages.

Neither device shows benchmark scores in the database, so performance claims must remain strictly tied to specifications. The MI350P's 3 nm process, larger die, and higher transistor count suggest a design optimized for maximum throughput per watt of silicon area, even at a 600 W power envelope. The T4000's fixed 1530 MHz clock and 90 W TDP indicate a design tuned for predictable operation in systems where cooling and power delivery are limited.

The production status field adds context: the T4000 is marked as Active with a launch MSRP of 1,999 USD, while the MI350P has no production status recorded. The T4000 also lists a successor (Server Rubin) and a predecessor (Server Hopper), whereas the MI350P lists only a predecessor (Radeon Instinct) with no successor. The release dates place the T4000 first, on 2026-01-04, with the MI350P following on 2026-05-06.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two devices as recorded in the database:

• Architecture: CDNA 4.0 (MI350P) versus Blackwell (T4000)
• Process node: 3 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: 73,000 million versus unknown
• Die size: 1190 mm² versus 391 mm²
• Transistor density: 61.3M / mm² versus null
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 1530 MHz
• Boost clock: 2200 MHz versus 1530 MHz
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective versus 1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 144 GB versus 64 GB
• Memory type: HBM3e versus LPDDR5X
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s
• Shading units: 8192 versus 1536
• TMUs: 512 versus 48
• ROPs: 0 versus 16
• RT cores: null versus 12
• Tensor cores: null versus 64
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 24.48 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 73.44 GTexel/s
• FP32: 36.04 TFLOPS versus 4.700 TFLOPS
• FP16: 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 4.700 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 600 W versus 90 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus IGP
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus 250 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x8
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm versus 87 mm x 100 mm x 15 mm
• Production status: null versus Active
• Release date: 2026-05-06 versus 2026-01-04
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus Server Hopper
• Successor: null versus Server Rubin
• Launch MSRP: null versus 1,999 USD

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two?

A: The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the T4000 provides 4.700 TFLOPS. The AMD part offers roughly 7.7 times the single-precision floating-point performance.

Q: How much memory does each device have and what type?

A: The MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e memory, while the T4000 has 64 GB of LPDDR5X memory. The MI350P also uses an 8192-bit bus versus 256-bit on the T4000.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI350P has a 600 W TDP with a 1x 16-pin power connector and a suggested 1000 W PSU. The T4000 has a 90 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: Can either device output video?

A: No. Both the MI350P and the T4000 list "No outputs" for display outputs, and both record N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan API support, confirming they are compute-only accelerators.

Q: When was each device released?

A: The T4000 has a release date of 2026-01-04, while the MI350P has a release date of 2026-05-06. The T4000 is listed as Active in production status.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The MI350P uses a 3 nm process, while the T4000 uses a 5 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350P wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance, 1,126.4 GTexel/s texture rate, and 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth position it for workloads that demand maximum arithmetic intensity and rapid data movement. The 144 GB HBM3e capacity allows large models or datasets to reside entirely in fast memory, avoiding PCIe transfers. The 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs provide the execution resources to keep that memory bandwidth saturated. The dual-slot card format and 600 W TDP indicate a device intended for a server chassis with dedicated cooling and robust power delivery.

The T4000 wins in power efficiency and physical integration. At 90 W TDP with no external power connectors, it can operate in systems where the MI350P's 600 W requirement would be impossible. The IGP form factor at 87 mm by 100 mm by 15 mm fits into compact embedded or edge deployments, while the MI350P's 267 mm length requires a full-size expansion slot. The T4000's 64 GB LPDDR5X memory and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth are modest by comparison but sufficient for inference or edge processing tasks that do not require the MI350P's scale. The T4000 also includes RT cores and tensor cores, which the MI350P does not list, suggesting hardware support for ray tracing and tensor operations that the AMD part does not expose in its specification record.

The T4000's fixed 1530 MHz clock simplifies thermal management, as the processor does not need boost headroom. The MI350P's variable 1000 MHz to 2200 MHz range requires the cooling solution to handle the full boost envelope. The T4000's 16 ROPs and 24.48 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the MI350P records 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s, indicates the NVIDIA part retains some graphics pipeline functionality that the AMD part entirely omits.

For systems with strict power budgets, the T4000's 90 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU are clear advantages. For systems where maximum compute density per card is the priority, the MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth define the upper bound of what each slot can deliver. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload fits within the T4000's 64 GB memory and 4.700 TFLOPS envelope, or whether it requires the MI350P's 144 GB capacity and 7.7 times the FP32 throughput.