AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon 760M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI350X and the AMD Radeon 760M. The MI350X has no recorded benchmark scores, an average score of 0, and sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. The Radeon 760M, by contrast, has a full suite of ten benchmark results, an average score of 6019, and a 35th percentile ranking.

For the Radeon 760M, the strongest recorded result is in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 30336, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 20255. PassMark G3D shows 5310, PassMark G2D shows 890, and PassMark GPU Compute shows 2840. The DirectX tests are lower: PassMark DirectX 11 scores 52, DirectX 9 scores 65, DirectX 12 scores 25, and DirectX 10 scores 19. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test returns 400.

The MI350X's absence of benchmark data means the head-to-head comparison is one-sided. The recorded data shows the Radeon 760M performs as a typical integrated GPU, with its nearest rivals being the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (average score 6001, delta 0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (average score 6000, delta 0.3%), and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (average score 5996, delta 0.4%). The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 sits slightly ahead at 6049, a negative delta of -0.5% relative to the 760M. These deltas confirm the 760M sits in a tightly clustered performance band, within half a percent of its closest competitors.

The MI350X, with no benchmarks and zero average score, cannot be placed in any performance comparison. Its percentile ranking of 50 is a default position, not a measured result. Any claim of superiority for either part must come from architectural and specification data, not from recorded benchmark outcomes.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 760M wins in every measurable benchmark category because it is the only one of the two with recorded scores. It delivers a functional compute and graphics profile across DirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan workloads. The PassMark G3D score of 5310 indicates usable 3D rendering capability for an integrated part. Geekbench Vulkan at 30336 shows strong compute throughput in cross-platform APIs, while Geekbench OpenCL at 20255 confirms similar performance in general-purpose compute.

The MI350X wins in theoretical specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS dwarfs the 760M's 5.323 TFLOPS. Texture rate on the MI350X is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 83.17 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s on the MI350X, while the 760M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth labeled "System Dependent." The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory, the 760M has no dedicated memory.

The use-case split is clear. The 760M is a low-power integrated GPU for everyday graphics and light compute, with a 15 W TDP and motherboard-dependent display outputs. The MI350X is a 1000 W accelerator with no display outputs, designed for data center compute tasks where raw throughput and memory capacity matter more than benchmark scores in consumer tests.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process. The 760M uses RDNA 3.0 on a 4 nm TSMC process. The MI350X is built on the MI350 256CU chip with 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 77.7M per mm². The 760M uses the Phoenix chip with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding 142.6M transistors per mm².

The MI350X has 16384 shading units, 1024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, and its texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s. It has no RT cores listed and no tensor core count specified. The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. It has 8 RT cores, a pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s. Both parts run FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

The MI350X's memory subsystem uses HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 288 GB capacity. Memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate. The 760M uses system shared memory with no dedicated bus width or capacity figures. The MI350X has no display outputs, while the 760M's outputs are motherboard dependent. The MI350X supports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan APIs per the database, while the 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The 760M has a lower base clock of 800 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2599 MHz. The 760M's higher boost clock reflects its consumer-oriented design, while the MI350X prioritizes sustained throughput across a massive compute array.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every field in the database. The MI350X is an OAM module with a 102 mm length and 165 mm width, while the 760M is an IGP with no recorded dimensions. The MI350X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, the 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI350X has no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the 760M has no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed.

Power consumption differs by a factor of more than 60: the MI350X is rated at 1000 W TDP, the 760M at 15 W TDP. Memory amounts differ by a factor of 288 GB dedicated versus system shared. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus system dependent. Bus width is 8192 bit on the MI350X versus system shared on the 760M. Shading units are 16384 versus 512, TMUs are 1024 versus 32, and ROPs are 0 versus 16. FP32 is 72.09 TFLOPS versus 5.323 TFLOPS.

Release dates differ: the MI350X launched on 2025-06-11, the 760M on 2024-01-30. The MI350X's production status is not recorded, while the 760M is listed as Active. The MI350X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, the 760M's predecessor is Navi II IGP. Both parts have no successor listed and no launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The MI350X has 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, while the Radeon 760M has 5.323 TFLOPS. The MI350X delivers approximately 13.5 times the FP32 throughput based on these recorded figures.

Q: Does the Radeon 760M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 760M includes 8 RT cores. The MI350X has no RT core count listed in the database.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The 760M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated capacity.

Q: Can the MI350X output video to a display?

A: No, the MI350X has no display outputs. The 760M's display outputs are motherboard dependent, meaning it can output video through the host system's ports.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The 760M has a 15 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has better benchmark performance in the database?

A: The Radeon 760M has all recorded benchmarks, with an average score of 6019 and a 35th percentile ranking. The MI350X has no benchmarks, an average score of 0, and a 50th percentile default ranking.

The Verdict

The data shows two entirely different product classes. The MI350X is a data center accelerator with 288 GB of HBM3e, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, 16384 shading units, and 72.09 TFLOPS FP32. It has no display outputs, no API support recorded, and no benchmark scores. Its 1000 W TDP and OAM module form factor confirm its intended installation in server racks, not desktop systems.

The Radeon 760M is an integrated GPU for mobile and desktop processors. It has a 15 W TDP, 512 shading units, 8 RT cores, and 5.323 TFLOPS FP32. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its benchmark scores place it at the 35th percentile, with nearest rivals within 0.5% in either direction. The 760M's average score of 6019 against the RX 6400's 6001 and the GTX 770M's 6000 shows it performs in line with entry-level discrete GPUs from previous generations.

For users choosing between these two, the decision rests on workload requirements. The MI350X is the correct choice for compute-heavy tasks that can use its massive memory pool and FP32 throughput, provided the host system can supply 1000 W and accommodate an OAM module. The 760M is the correct choice for any system requiring display output, consumer API support, or low power consumption. No benchmark data exists for the MI350X, so its performance advantage is theoretical rather than measured. The 760M has proven scores across ten tests, making it the only one of the two with verifiable real-world results in the database.