AMD Instinct MI350P vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows two entirely different compute products that share almost no common ground in intended use. The AMD Instinct MI350P is a dedicated accelerator built around a 3 nm process with a 1190 mm² die, 73,000 million transistors, and a 600 W power envelope. It targets high-throughput compute workloads where memory bandwidth and raw shader throughput dominate. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is a Blackwell 2.0 integrated graphics processor on a 5 nm process with a 382 mm² die, designed to operate as an IGP with no power connectors and a single HDMI output. The N1 16SM is not a competitor to the MI350P in any workload that stresses memory bandwidth or FP32 throughput.

The MI350P wins in every category where the database records a measurable specification. Its FP32 throughput of 36.04 TFLOPS is roughly 3.75 times the N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,126.4 GTexel/s is roughly 3.75 times the N1 16SM's 300.3 GTexel/s. The MI350P's memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is approximately 30 times the N1 16SM's 273.2 GB/s. The MI350P carries 144 GB of HBM3e across an 8192 bit bus, while the N1 16SM carries 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256 bit bus. The MI350P's 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs dwarf the N1 16SM's 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs.

The N1 16SM wins in areas the MI350P simply does not implement. The MI350P has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, meaning it cannot rasterize output to a display. The N1 16SM has 24 ROPs, a pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores, plus a display output. The MI350P has no display outputs at all. Any workload that requires rendering frames to a screen belongs exclusively to the N1 16SM.

The use case split is therefore clean. The MI350P is for compute-only environments: large memory footprint workloads, high-bandwidth data movement, and heavy FP32 or FP16 math. The N1 16SM is for integrated graphics duties in a system that also needs a display output and rasterization capability. Neither chip can substitute for the other.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P uses CDNA 4.0 architecture and is built on a 3 nm TSMC process. The die measures 1190 mm² and packs 73,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 61.3 million per square millimeter. The N1 16SM uses Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with a 382 mm² die and an unknown transistor count. The MI350P's transistor density is roughly 1.9 times the N1 16SM's density, though the N1 16SM's density cannot be computed from the available data.

The MI350P's memory subsystem is built around HBM3e with 144 GB capacity, an 8192 bit bus, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The N1 16SM uses LPDDR5X with 128 GB capacity, a 256 bit bus, and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock difference is notable: the MI350P runs memory at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate, while the N1 16SM runs memory at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. Despite the N1 16SM's higher effective per-pin rate, the MI350P's 32 times wider bus produces roughly 30 times total bandwidth.

The compute pipelines differ in structure. The MI350P has 8192 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, with no RT cores or tensor cores listed. The N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. Both parts report FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning neither uses a dedicated half-rate FP16 path.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The MI350P has a 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The N1 16SM has a 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost, a higher boost clock by 146 MHz despite the older process node. The N1 16SM's higher boost clock does not compensate for its smaller shader array, as its FP32 output remains far below the MI350P's.

Power delivery separates the two designs completely. The MI350P is a dual-slot card with a single 16-pin connector and a suggested 1000 W power supply. The N1 16SM is an IGP with no power connectors and no TDP listed. The MI350P's 600 W TDP makes it a discrete accelerator; the N1 16SM's IGP form factor means it draws power through its host socket.

FAQ

Q: Which chip has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS FP32, which is approximately 3.75 times the N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS.

Q: Does either chip support display output?

A: Only the N1 16SM. It provides 1x HDMI output. The MI350P has no display outputs and cannot drive a monitor.

Q: Which chip has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI350P has 8.19 TB/s over an 8192 bit HBM3e interface. The N1 16SM has 273.2 GB/s over a 256 bit LPDDR5X interface. The MI350P's bandwidth is roughly 30 times higher.

Q: Are these chips comparable in rasterization performance?

A: No. The MI350P has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The N1 16SM has 24 ROPs, a pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores.

Q: What process nodes do these chips use?

A: The MI350P uses a 3 nm TSMC process. The N1 16SM uses a 5 nm TSMC process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The N1 16SM boosts to 2346 MHz, which is 146 MHz higher than the MI350P's 2200 MHz boost clock. The MI350P has a higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 741 MHz.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in nearly every recorded field. The MI350P uses a 3 nm process; the N1 16SM uses 5 nm. The MI350P's die is 1190 mm²; the N1 16SM's is 382 mm². The MI350P has 73,000 million transistors; the N1 16SM's count is unknown. The MI350P's transistor density is 61.3M per mm²; the N1 16SM's density is not recorded.

Base clocks: 1000 MHz versus 741 MHz. Boost clocks: 2200 MHz versus 2346 MHz. Memory clocks: 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective versus 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. Memory size: 144 GB HBM3e versus 128 GB LPDDR5X. Memory bus: 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Memory bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.

Shading units: 8192 versus 2048. TMUs: 512 versus 128. ROPs: 0 versus 24. RT cores: none listed versus 16. Tensor cores: none listed versus 64. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s. FP32: 36.04 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS. FP16: 36.04 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS, both at 1:1 ratio.

TDP: 600 W versus unknown. Slot width: dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: 1x 16-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus not recorded. Display outputs: none versus 1x HDMI. Dimensions: the MI350P is 267 mm long, 111 mm high, and 40 mm wide; the N1 16SM has no dimensions recorded.

Production status: the MI350P has no status recorded; the N1 16SM is marked active. Release dates: the MI350P is dated 2026-05-06 and the N1 16SM is dated 2026-05-31. The MI350P's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the N1 16SM has no predecessor listed. Neither chip lists a successor. Neither chip lists a launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs for these two products. The winsA and winsB counts are both zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. The comparison must therefore be built from the recorded specification data and the percentile fields, which place both chips at the 50th percentile against all GPUs with an average benchmark score of zero. That percentile equality reflects the absence of benchmark data, not equivalence in performance.

The largest margin in the comparison is memory bandwidth. The MI350P's 8.19 TB/s is approximately 30 times the N1 16SM's 273.2 GB/s. A workload that streams large datasets from memory will finish on the MI350P in roughly one thirtieth of the time it would take on the N1 16SM, assuming compute does not become the bottleneck.

FP32 throughput shows a similar gap. The MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS is 26.431 TFLOPS higher than the N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS, a multiple of roughly 3.75. Texture rate follows the same ratio: 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s, again a factor of roughly 3.75. These three ratios are consistent because the MI350P has exactly four times the shading units and four times the TMUs, and its clock behavior produces the same overall throughput ratio.

The N1 16SM's wins are in rasterization and display features. Its 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate is meaningful only because the MI350P has a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. Its 24 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores have no counterpart in the MI350P's recorded specifications. Its boost clock of 2346 MHz exceeds the MI350P's 2200 MHz by 146 MHz, but that advantage is confined to clock speed and does not translate into higher aggregate throughput.

The MI350P's memory capacity advantage is 144 GB versus 128 GB, a 16 GB difference. Its bus width advantage is 8192 bit versus 256 bit, a 32 times difference. Its die area advantage is 1190 mm² versus 382 mm², a 3.1 times difference. Its transistor count advantage cannot be expressed as a ratio because the N1 16SM's count is unknown.

Neither part has any recorded API support. Both list DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. Both report FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. Both are manufactured by TSMC. Both have release dates in May 2026, with the MI350P dated 25 days earlier than the N1 16SM.

The Verdict

The data directs each chip to a distinct role. The MI350P is the choice for compute workloads that need massive memory bandwidth, large capacity, and high FP32 throughput. Its 8.19 TB/s bandwidth and 144 GB HBM3e capacity serve workloads that move large arrays or models through memory. Its 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 and 36.04 TFLOPS FP16 handle dense math at a 1:1 ratio. Its 600 W TDP and dual-slot form factor require a host with a 1000 W suggested power supply and a 16-pin connector.

The N1 16SM is the choice for integrated graphics duties. Its IGP slot width, lack of power connectors, and 1x HDMI output make it a display-capable part. Its 24 ROPs, 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores provide rasterization and ray tracing features the MI350P lacks entirely. Its 128 GB LPDDR5X memory and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth are modest by comparison but sufficient for integrated graphics workloads.

A buyer with a compute-only server should select the MI350P. A system builder needing display output and a compact integrated solution should select the N1 16SM. The two products do not compete for the same workload. The MI350P cannot output video; the N1 16SM cannot approach the MI350P's compute throughput or memory bandwidth. The recorded data shows no overlap in their applicable use cases.