AMD Instinct MI350P vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two cards into entirely different performance classes. The AMD Instinct MI350P is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs and no benchmark entries in the database, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 is a workstation graphics card with a full suite of DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan, and compute test scores. The MI350P holds no wins in the head-to-head benchmark comparison because no shared tests were recorded. The RTX A400, by contrast, has nine individual benchmark scores across Geekbench and Passmark suites, giving it a functional edge in any test that requires rendered output or API-level graphics workloads.

The RTX A400 wins every measurable category where data exists. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 and Vulkan score of 22,237 place it well ahead of its nearest rivals in the database. The Passmark G3D score of 5,983 and GPU compute score of 2,557 further establish its position. For legacy DirectX workloads, the A400 records scores of 87 in DirectX 9, 37 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 10, and 27 in DirectX 12. The G2D score of 899 rounds out the profile. The MI350P, with zero recorded benchmarks and a 50th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, cannot claim a single win in any workload category.

The use-case split is clear from the specifications alone. The MI350P targets high-bandwidth compute with 144 GB of HBM3e memory and 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, while the A400 targets conventional workstation display output with 4 GB GDDR6 and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. The MI350P has no pixel rate, no ROPs, and no API support, meaning it cannot render frames to a screen. The A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it wins every graphics-oriented use case by default.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture with an MI350 128CU chip 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 RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture with a GA107 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process. Its die is 200 mm² with 8,700 million transistors and a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The process node difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 8 nm, and the transistor count difference is roughly eightfold in favor of the MI350P.

Core configuration differs sharply. The MI350P has 8,192 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. It has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, plus 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The MI350P's FP32 throughput is 36.04 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput matches at 36.04 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, again at 1:1. The compute throughput gap is more than 13 times in favor of the MI350P.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, achieving 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, achieving 96.00 GB/s. The memory clock for the MI350P is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the A400 runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The bandwidth difference is over 85 times in favor of the MI350P, which reflects the compute card's purpose as a large-memory accelerator.

Clock speeds also differ. The MI350P has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz. The A400 has a base of 1417 MHz and a boost of 1762 MHz. Despite lower base clocks, the MI350P's boost clock is significantly higher. The texture rate for the MI350P is 1,126.4 GTexel/s, while the A400 manages 42.29 GTexel/s. The pixel rate for the A400 is 28.19 GPixel/s; the MI350P records 0 MPixel/s. The MI350P has no display outputs, while the A400 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmarks were recorded in the database for these two cards. The MI350P has an empty benchmark array and an average score of zero, while the RTX A400 has nine recorded scores. The absence of shared tests means a direct numerical comparison cannot be made from benchmark results. Instead, the comparison rests on the specification data and the A400's benchmark profile against its own nearest rivals.

The A400's average benchmark score is 6,078. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, scores 6,077 with a delta of 0 percent, meaning the two are statistically identical in average performance. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6,049, putting the A400 0.5 percent ahead. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6,117, meaning the A400 trails by 0.6 percent. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 6,019, and the A400 leads by 1 percent. These deltas are small, indicating that the A400 sits in a tightly grouped performance band for its class.

The MI350P's percentile ranking against all GPUs is 50, which places it at the median of the database's entire GPU population. The A400 ranks at the 35th percentile. These percentile figures do not come from shared workloads, so they should not be read as a direct head-to-head result. The MI350P's median ranking reflects its role as a specialized compute accelerator with no graphics benchmark entries, while the A400's 35th percentile reflects its modest position among all recorded GPUs.

The biggest numerical wins for the A400 come from its Geekbench scores. The OpenCL score of 22,844 and Vulkan score of 22,237 are far above its Passmark results, indicating strong compute performance under those specific workloads. The Passmark G3D score of 5,983 is the highest DirectX-era graphics score for the card, while the DirectX 12 score of 27 is the lowest. The G2D score of 899 shows 2D capability that the MI350P cannot match due to its lack of display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350P support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists all three APIs as N/A for the MI350P. It has no display outputs and cannot run graphics API workloads.

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

A: The MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU with a 1x 16-pin power connector. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W, a 250 W suggested PSU, and requires no power connectors.

Q: Which card has ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: The RTX A400 has 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The MI350P lists no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores in the database.

Q: What are the recorded benchmark scores for the MI350P?

A: The MI350P has no recorded benchmark scores. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile versus all GPUs is 50.

Q: How does the RTX A400 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The A400 matches the GeForce MX230 at 0 percent delta, leads the Quadro P2000 by 0.5 percent, trails the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 by 0.6 percent, and leads the Radeon 760M by 1 percent in average benchmark score.

The Verdict

The data shows two cards engineered for different purposes. The AMD Instinct MI350P is a compute accelerator with massive memory capacity, high bandwidth, and no graphics output capability. Its 144 GB HBM3e pool, 8192-bit bus, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth serve workloads that need large data residency and rapid memory access. Its 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 throughput, 8,192 shading units, and 512 TMUs confirm a compute-first design. The lack of ROPs, pixel rate, and display outputs means it cannot function as a conventional graphics card.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 is a low-power workstation card with 4 GB GDDR6, 768 shading units, 16 ROPs, 6 ray tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot form factor suit compact workstation builds. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Its benchmark scores, while modest in absolute terms, are consistent with its class, as the near-zero deltas against its nearest rivals show.

Users who need graphics output, API compatibility, ray tracing, or tensor acceleration should select the RTX A400. It is the only card of the two with recorded benchmark results, display outputs, and graphics API support. Users who need extreme memory capacity, very high bandwidth, and compute throughput without any display requirement should select the MI350P. Its 144 GB memory and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth are the defining advantages. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload requires rendered frames or raw compute throughput.

Specification Differences

• Process node: MI350P is 3 nm (TSMC); RTX A400 is 8 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: MI350P has 73,000 million; RTX A400 has 8,700 million
• Die size: MI350P is 1190 mm²; RTX A400 is 200 mm²
• Transistor density: MI350P is 61.3M per mm²; RTX A400 is 43.5M per mm²
• Base clock: MI350P is 1000 MHz; RTX A400 is 1417 MHz
• Boost clock: MI350P is 2200 MHz; RTX A400 is 1762 MHz
• Memory clock: MI350P is 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective); RTX A400 is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: MI350P is 144 GB; RTX A400 is 4 GB
• Memory type: MI350P is HBM3e; RTX A400 is GDDR6
• Memory bus width: MI350P is 8192 bit; RTX A400 is 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: MI350P is 8.19 TB/s; RTX A400 is 96.00 GB/s
• Shading units: MI350P has 8,192; RTX A400 has 768
• Texture mapping units: MI350P has 512; RTX A400 has 24
• ROPs: MI350P has 0; RTX A400 has 16
• Ray tracing cores: MI350P has none listed; RTX A400 has 6
• Tensor cores: MI350P has none listed; RTX A400 has 24
• Pixel rate: MI350P is 0 MPixel/s; RTX A400 is 28.19 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: MI350P is 1,126.4 GTexel/s; RTX A400 is 42.29 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: MI350P is 36.04 TFLOPS; RTX A400 is 2.706 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: MI350P is 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1); RTX A400 is 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: MI350P is 600 W; RTX A400 is 50 W
• Slot width: MI350P is dual-slot; RTX A400 is single-slot
• Power connectors: MI350P requires 1x 16-pin; RTX A400 requires none
• Suggested PSU: MI350P is 1000 W; RTX A400 is 250 W
• Bus interface: MI350P is PCIe 5.0 x16; RTX A400 is PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display outputs: MI350P has none; RTX A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• API support: MI350P lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A; RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4
• Dimensions: MI350P is 267 mm long, 111 mm high, 40 mm wide; RTX A400 is 163 mm long, 69 mm high, no width listed
• Release date: MI350P is May 2026; RTX A400 is April 2024
• Production status: MI350P is not listed; RTX A400 is active
• Predecessor: MI350P lists Radeon Instinct; RTX A400 lists Quadro Turing