AMD Instinct MI350P vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a clear functional split between these two accelerators, despite both being categorized in the 50th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Instinct MI350P is built exclusively for compute acceleration with no display outputs, no raster operation units, and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. Its entire design centers on massive parallel throughput, with 8192 shading units and a texture rate of 1,126.4 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM, conversely, is an integrated graphics processor that retains a full display pipeline, including 48 ROPs, a pixel rate of 112.6 GPixel/s, and a single HDMI output. This makes the N1X suitable for tasks requiring both rendering and compute, while the MI350P is a pure compute accelerator.

In raw compute throughput, the MI350P holds the advantage. Its FP32 performance of 36.04 TFLOPS exceeds the N1X's 28.83 TFLOPS by roughly 25 percent. The MI350P also leads in texture throughput, delivering 1,126.4 GTexel/s against the N1X's 900.9 GTexel/s, a margin of approximately 25 percent. These figures indicate that the MI350P is the stronger choice for FP32 workloads such as simulation, scientific computing, and large-scale matrix operations. The N1X counters with superior pixel processing, where its 112.6 GPixel/s dwarfs the MI350P's effectively zero pixel throughput, confirming its role in graphics output and display-related tasks.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive differentiator. The MI350P provides 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth over an 8192-bit HBM3e interface, which is roughly 30 times the N1X's 273.2 GB/s from a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus. For memory-bound kernels, this bandwidth advantage is the dominant factor. The N1X instead offers 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, which, while smaller than the MI350P's 144 GB HBM3e pool, is still substantial for integrated graphics. The MI350P's memory configuration is clearly aimed at data-center class workloads where memory throughput dictates performance, whereas the N1X prioritizes sufficient capacity with lower power and integration complexity.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC and packs 73,000 million transistors into a 1190 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 61.3 million per square millimeter. The N1X uses a 5 nm TSMC process on a 382 mm² die, with the transistor count listed as unknown. The MI350P's die is over three times larger, which directly enables its 8192-bit memory bus and 144 GB of HBM3e. The N1X, by contrast, is a system-on-chip integrated GPU with a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface and 128 GB of memory, reflecting a design philosophy that prioritizes packaging efficiency over raw bandwidth.

Clock behavior also diverges sharply. The MI350P has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the N1X starts at 741 MHz and boosts to 2346 MHz. The N1X achieves a higher peak clock despite the older process node, which suggests a power-optimized design. The MI350P's power envelope is specified at 600 W with a 1000 W suggested power supply and a single 16-pin connector, whereas the N1X has no power connector and an unknown TDP, consistent with its integrated form factor. The MI350P is dual-slot and measures 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm, while the N1X has no recorded dimensions, reinforcing its IGP status.

Architecturally, the MI350P uses CDNA 4.0 with the MI350 128CU chip, while the N1X uses Blackwell 2.0 with the GB20B chip. The MI350P has no RT cores and no tensor cores listed, whereas the N1X includes 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. This means the N1X carries dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI tensor operations, features absent from the MI350P's compute-focused design. Both parts report no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support in the database, which is atypical for the N1X given its display output. The MI350P's predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the N1X has no predecessor. Release dates are close, with the MI350P on May 6, 2026, and the N1X on May 31, 2026, both in the same generation window.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the MI350P is the superior choice for compute-intensive, memory-bandwidth-bound workloads. Its 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 1,126.4 GTexel/s texture rate, and 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth place it firmly in the high-end accelerator class. The 144 GB HBM3e pool at 8192-bit width is unmatched by the N1X's 128 GB LPDDR5X at 273.2 GB/s. Any workload that saturates memory bandwidth, such as large model inference, fluid dynamics, or dense linear algebra, will see substantial gains on the MI350P. The absence of display outputs and ROPs confirms that it is not intended for graphics output.

The N1X 48SM is the appropriate selection for integrated systems that require a balance of compute and display capability. Its 28.83 TFLOPS FP32 is within 25 percent of the MI350P, which is respectable for an IGP. The inclusion of 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores provides specialized acceleration for ray tracing and tensor operations, which the MI350P lacks entirely. The 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate and HDMI output make it functional for rendering tasks. The N1X also operates without a dedicated power connector, suggesting a far lower power draw than the MI350P's 600 W, though exact TDP is not recorded.

Neither part has benchmark scores or nearest rivals in the database, so direct performance comparisons are limited to architectural specifications. The percentile ranking is identical at 50 for both, indicating no aggregate performance differentiation in the recorded data. The choice between them rests on the deployment context: the MI350P for dedicated compute nodes, the N1X for integrated systems with graphics needs. The MI350P's 3 nm process and larger die reflect a high-performance strategy, while the N1X's 5 nm process and compact 382 mm² die target power efficiency and integration.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS FP32, which is 25 percent higher than the NVIDIA N1X 48SM's 28.83 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1X support graphics output?

A: Yes, the N1X includes 48 ROPs, a pixel rate of 112.6 GPixel/s, and one HDMI output, whereas the MI350P has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The N1X uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The MI350P's bandwidth is approximately 30 times higher.

Q: What specialized hardware does each part include?

A: The N1X includes 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The MI350P has no RT cores and no tensor cores listed in the database.

Q: Which process nodes are used?

A: The MI350P is fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process with a 1190 mm² die and 73,000 million transistors. The N1X uses TSMC's 5 nm process with a 382 mm² die and unknown transistor count.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W, requires a 1000 W suggested power supply, and uses a single 16-pin connector. The N1X has an unknown TDP and no power connectors, consistent with an integrated design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant quantitative win for the MI350P is in memory bandwidth. The recorded data shows 8.19 TB/s for the MI350P versus 273.2 GB/s for the N1X. This is a 30-fold difference, and it fundamentally changes the performance profile for memory-bound kernels. A workload that streams data at 1 TB/s would saturate the N1X's bus almost instantly but would utilize only about 12 percent of the MI350P's capacity. For large matrix multiplications or convolutions that repeatedly access weights and activations, this bandwidth gap translates directly into runtime differences.

FP32 throughput also favors the MI350P. The 36.04 TFLOPS figure exceeds the N1X's 28.83 TFLOPS by 7.21 TFLOPS, or exactly 25 percent. This is a substantial margin for general compute, though not overwhelming. The N1X's higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 2200 MHz partially compensates for its fewer shading units, but the MI350P's 8192 shading units versus 6144 gives it a 33 percent unit count advantage. The result is a clear, but not lopsided, compute win for the MI350P.

Texture throughput follows a similar pattern. The MI350P's 1,126.4 GTexel/s beats the N1X's 900.9 GTexel/s by 225.5 GTexel/s, a 25 percent advantage. This is consistent with the FP32 margin, since texture units operate in lockstep with shading units on both architectures. The N1X's 384 TMUs versus 512 on the MI350P, a 25 percent deficit, explains the gap.

The N1X's primary win is in pixel throughput. Its 112.6 GPixel/s is not just higher, it is effectively infinite compared to the MI350P's 0 MPixel/s. The MI350P has 0 ROPs, meaning it cannot perform rasterization at all. The N1X's 48 ROPs enable full graphics output. This is not a performance margin but a functional distinction: the MI350P cannot display images, while the N1X is fully capable of rendering to a display.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The N1X boosts to 2346 MHz, which is 146 MHz higher than the MI350P's 2200 MHz boost, a 6.6 percent advantage. However, the N1X's base clock of 741 MHz is 259 MHz lower than the MI350P's 1000 MHz base, a 25.9 percent deficit. Sustained workloads are more likely to run near boost clocks on both parts, so the N1X's higher boost is a modest counterbalance to its lower core count.

Memory capacity favors the MI350P by 16 GB, with 144 GB versus 128 GB. This 12.5 percent capacity advantage, combined with the massive bandwidth edge, makes the MI350P the clear choice for large memory-resident models. The N1X's 128 GB is still substantial, but the 273.2 GB/s bandwidth will bottleneck any workload that requires frequent data movement.

The release timeline shows the MI350P arriving on May 6, 2026, and the N1X on May 31, 2026, a 25-day gap. Both are recorded in the same generation and percentile bracket. The MI350P's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the N1X has no predecessor, marking it as a new entry in the Blackwell IGP line. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded, so price comparisons are not possible from the data.