AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon 740M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350X and AMD Radeon 740M occupy entirely different positions in the database. The MI350X is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 1000 W power envelope. The 740M is an integrated graphics processor designed for mobile and low-power systems, with full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The benchmark records are one-sided: the 740M has two recorded Geekbench scores (OpenCL 10172, Vulkan 15568), while the MI350X has no benchmark entries and an average score of zero. The MI350X wins in raw compute capacity, memory bandwidth, and transistor scale. The 740M wins in every practical graphics workload, API compatibility, and system integration scenario. The data shows no overlap in intended use cases. The MI350X targets acceleration of large-scale compute tasks, while the 740M serves as a functional graphics solution for everyday systems.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share a manufacturer but diverge completely in design philosophy. The MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, packing 185,000 million transistors into a 2380 mm² die. The transistor density is 77.7 million per square millimeter. The 740M uses RDNA 3.0 on a 4 nm TSMC process, with 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 152.6 million per square millimeter. The MI350X is built around 16384 shading units, 1024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, reflecting its pure compute focus. The 740M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores, making it a complete graphics pipeline. The MI350X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the 740M includes them. The MI350X features 288 GB of HBM3e memory on a 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The 740M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Clock behavior differs sharply: the MI350X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, while the 740M runs at 800 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost. The MI350X has no API support (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all listed as N/A), while the 740M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X uses an OAM module form factor with no power connectors, while the 740M is an IGP with motherboard-dependent outputs. The MI350X connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, the 740M via PCIe 4.0 x8.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, while the 740M delivers 2.867 TFLOPS in both formats. The MI350X is roughly 25 times faster in raw floating-point performance.

Q: Can the MI350X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI350X has no display outputs listed, and its DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support are all marked N/A. The 740M has motherboard-dependent display outputs and full graphics API support.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The 740M relies on system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and bus width.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. The 740M has a 45 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed, as it is an integrated processor.

Q: Which one has better graphics API compatibility?

A: The 740M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X has no graphics API support at all.

Q: What are their release dates?

A: The 740M was released on 2024-01-30, and the MI350X was released on 2025-06-11.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 3 nm for the MI350X versus 4 nm for the 740M. Transistor count is 185,000 million versus 20,900 million. Die size is 2380 mm² versus 137 mm². Transistor density is 77.7M per mm² versus 152.6M per mm². Base clock is 1000 MHz versus 800 MHz. Boost clock is 2200 MHz versus 2800 MHz. Shading units are 16384 versus 256. TMUs are 1024 versus 16. ROPs are 0 versus 8. Ray tracing cores are absent on the MI350X and 4 on the 740M. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 44.80 GTexel/s. FP32 is 72.09 TFLOPS versus 2.867 TFLOPS. FP16 is identical at 72.09 TFLOPS versus 2.867 TFLOPS. TDP is 1000 W versus 45 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus IGP. Power connectors are None for both. Suggested PSU is 1400 W for the MI350X, none for the 740M. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are none versus motherboard dependent. DirectX support is N/A versus 12 Ultimate, OpenGL is N/A versus 4.6, Vulkan is N/A versus 1.4. The MI350X measures 102 mm by 165 mm, while the 740M has no listed dimensions. The MI350X has no production status listed, while the 740M is marked Active. The 740M has a predecessor (Navi II IGP) and a successor (Navi III IGP), while the MI350X lists only a predecessor (Radeon Instinct). The 740M has a 53rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the MI350X sits at the 50th percentile with no benchmark data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the MI350X and the 740M. The MI350X has no benchmark entries at all, recording an average score of zero. The 740M shows two recorded results: 10172 in Geekbench OpenCL and 15568 in Geekbench Vulkan, with an average score of 12870. In the absence of direct comparisons, the nearest rivals for the 740M provide context. The AMD FirePro W5100 scores 12847, which is 0.2 percent behind the 740M. The AMD Radeon Pro 455 scores 12831, 0.3 percent behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 also scores 12830, 0.3 percent behind. The AMD Radeon RX 580 scores 12928, which is 0.4 percent ahead of the 740M. These results indicate the 740M performs in the same class as older discrete desktop GPUs, despite being an integrated solution. The MI350X cannot be placed in the same benchmark context because no scores exist. The percentile data places the 740M at 53 percent of all GPUs, while the MI350X sits at 50 percent, but this ranking for the MI350X is based on zero recorded benchmark runs, so it should be interpreted as a placeholder rather than a measured result.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear separation of roles. The AMD Instinct MI350X is an accelerator for compute-heavy environments where graphics output is irrelevant. Its 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 288 GB of HBM3e memory, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large-scale data processing, AI training, or scientific simulation workloads that can use its 16384 shading units and 1024 TMUs. The absence of display outputs, graphics APIs, and ROPs confirms it is not a graphics card in the conventional sense. The 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU indicate a server or data center deployment, not a desktop build. The 740M, by contrast, is a fully featured integrated GPU with 4 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 45 W TDP and compact integration make it suitable for laptops or low-power desktops. Its benchmark scores place it within 0.4 percent of the AMD Radeon RX 580 and ahead of the FirePro W5100, Radeon Pro 455, and GeForce GTX 590. For anyone needing a functional graphics solution with modern API support, the 740M is the only viable option between these two. For anyone needing massive parallel compute throughput without graphics output, the MI350X is the only viable option. The data does not support recommending one over the other for the same task, because no task in the database fits both devices. The MI350X has no benchmarks, no graphics features, and no display outputs. The 740M has modest compute, complete graphics features, and system integration. The choice is dictated entirely by workload requirements. Compute acceleration points to the MI350X. Graphics rendering points to the 740M. There is no middle ground in the recorded specifications.