AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon 780M Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI350X and AMD Radeon 780M are not competing products in any conventional sense, and the recorded data confirms they occupy entirely different segments. The MI350X is a compute accelerator with zero benchmark entries, a 50th percentile standing among all GPUs, and a 1000 W power target. The Radeon 780M is an integrated graphics processor with three recorded benchmark scores, a 61st percentile standing, and a 15 W power target.

The MI350X is the pick for anyone operating a data center or research cluster that needs massive memory capacity and extreme compute throughput for workloads that do not require a display output. It has no display outputs, no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, and no raster operations pipeline (0 ROPS). This is a pure compute device. The data shows zero benchmark scores for it, which means the database has not recorded any gaming or graphics tests for this unit, consistent with its design purpose.

The Radeon 780M is the pick for a compact laptop or mini PC where power efficiency and graphics API compatibility matter. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it drives display outputs through the motherboard. Its three recorded benchmarks show it performs near the level of discrete desktop cards from several generations ago, such as the AMD Radeon Pro 560 and AMD Radeon HD 7790, while drawing only 15 W.

For a builder assembling a workstation or server, the MI350X is the only choice. For a builder assembling a portable system with integrated graphics, the 780M is the only choice. There is no overlap in their intended uses, and the data does not support treating them as alternatives.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the 780M uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process. The MI350X is built from the MI350 256CU chip, a 2380 mm² die with 185,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm². The 780M uses the Phoenix chip, a 178 mm² die with 25,390 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 142.6 million per mm². The smaller process node and smaller die allow the 780M to pack transistors nearly twice as densely, but the MI350X has vastly more total hardware.

The MI350X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, with a predecessor listed as Radeon Instinct. The 780M belongs to the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation, with a predecessor of Navi II IGP and a successor of Navi III IGP. The MI350X has no listed successor. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and 0 raster operations pipelines. The 780M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 raster operations pipelines, and 12 ray tracing cores. The MI350X has no listed ray tracing cores, no listed tensor cores, and no API support. The 780M has no listed tensor cores either, but it does have the ray tracing cores and full graphics API support.

Memory architecture is the largest differentiator. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The 780M uses system shared memory, with system shared type, system shared bus width, and bandwidth that is system dependent. The MI350X memory clock is 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective. The 780M memory clock is listed as "System Shared," meaning it relies entirely on the host system's RAM.

FAQ

Q: Why does the MI350X have no benchmark scores while the 780M has three?

A: The MI350X has an empty benchmark array and an average benchmark score of 0, with a 50th percentile among all GPUs. The 780M has recorded scores for 3dmark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan, with an average score of 17,588 and a 61st percentile. The MI350X is not designed for the standard graphics and compute workloads these tests measure.

Q: Can the MI350X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI350X has no display outputs and no APIs for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The 780M has motherboard-dependent display outputs and full API support.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The 780M has system shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth dependent on the host system.

Q: What power supply does each require?

A: The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, using an OAM module slot with no power connectors. The 780M has a 15 W TDP, an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: How does the 780M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 780M's average benchmark score of 17,588 is 0.2% above the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551), 0.5% above the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509), 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639), and 0.4% below the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17,666).

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The 780M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the MI350X boosts to 2200 MHz. The 780M also has a lower base clock at 800 MHz versus 1000 MHz for the MI350X.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The MI350X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture, a 3 nm process, and the MI350 256CU chip. The 780M uses RDNA 3.0 architecture, a 4 nm process, and the Phoenix chip. Transistor count is 185,000 million for the MI350X versus 25,390 million for the 780M. Die size is 2380 mm² versus 178 mm². Transistor density is 77.7 million per mm² versus 142.6 million per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The MI350X has a 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The 780M has an 800 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost. Memory clock is 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective for the MI350X, while the 780M lists system shared. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all fixed values for the MI350X and all system dependent for the 780M.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. Shading units are 16,384 versus 768. Texture mapping units are 1,024 versus 48. Raster operations pipelines are 0 versus 32. The 780M has 12 ray tracing cores; the MI350X has none listed. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI350X versus 92.80 GPixel/s for the 780M. Texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 72.09 TFLOPS versus 8.909 TFLOPS. Both have FP16 at a 1:1 ratio to FP32.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP, an OAM module slot, a 1400 W suggested PSU, PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, dimensions of 102 mm length and 165 mm width, and no display outputs. The 780M has a 15 W TDP, an IGP slot, no suggested PSU, PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, no listed dimensions, and motherboard-dependent display outputs. The MI350X has no production status listed; the 780M is listed as active. The MI350X released on 2025-06-11, and the 780M released on 2024-01-30. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no head-to-head benchmark entries for this pair, and the MI350X has no individual benchmark scores at all. The comparison must therefore rely on the 780M's recorded results and the MI350X's architectural specifications.

The 780M scores 480 in 3dmark Steel Nomad DX12, 18,602 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 33,683 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 17,588. The MI350X has an average benchmark score of 0 and no recorded tests. In the database's percentile ranking, the 780M sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, while the MI350X sits at the 50th percentile, a difference that reflects the 780M having actual measured results and the MI350X having none.

The MI350X's FP32 compute of 72.09 TFLOPS is 8.1 times the 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s is 16.2 times the 780M's 139.2 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is not directly comparable to the 780M's system dependent bandwidth, but the 8192-bit bus width versus system shared indicates a massive advantage for the MI350X in memory-bound workloads.

The 780M wins in pixel rate, 92.80 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s, and in ray tracing, with 12 ray tracing cores versus none. It also wins on boost clock, 2900 MHz versus 2200 MHz, and on API support, with full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support versus none.

The nearest rival data for the 780M shows it clustered tightly with older discrete cards. Its 17,588 average is within 0.5% of the Radeon Pro 460's 17,509 and within 0.4% of the Radeon HD 7790's 17,666. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 sits only 0.3% higher at 17,639, and the Radeon Pro 560 sits 0.2% lower at 17,551. This tight grouping indicates the 780M delivers performance comparable to a range of discrete desktop GPUs despite its 15 W integrated design.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350X wins in every category relevant to high-performance compute. Its 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 2,252.8 GTexel/s texture rate, and 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth on a 8192-bit bus make it suitable for large-scale data processing, scientific simulation, and AI training workloads. The 288 GB HBM3e capacity allows it to hold enormous datasets entirely on the accelerator, avoiding the need to stream from host memory. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides a high-bandwidth connection to the host. The 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU indicate it is designed for server racks with dedicated power delivery, not for desktop use.

The 780M wins in every category relevant to client graphics and integrated systems. Its 32 raster operations pipelines and 12 ray tracing cores enable it to render scenes with modern graphics features. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support means it can run contemporary games and applications. Its motherboard-dependent display outputs allow direct connection to monitors. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for thin laptops and compact desktops without discrete cooling. Its 2900 MHz boost clock is the highest recorded clock in this comparison, and its 92.80 GPixel/s pixel rate confirms it can drive displays effectively.

The MI350X has no display outputs and no graphics APIs, so it cannot function as a gaming or desktop GPU. The 780M has no dedicated memory and depends on system RAM, so its bandwidth is system dependent and cannot match the MI350X's HBM3e. The recorded data shows two specialized tools: one for compute acceleration in servers, one for graphics in client devices. Each wins in its own domain, and neither can substitute for the other.