AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon 880M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI350X and AMD Radeon 880M. The MI350X has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The Radeon 880M, by contrast, has a full set of recorded measurements across multiple test suites, with an average benchmark score of 8436 and a percentile rank of 43.

Because the MI350X lacks any benchmark data, direct numerical comparisons of performance are impossible. The Radeon 880M’s recorded scores show its position relative to its own nearest rivals. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 535. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 31285, and in Geekbench Vulkan it reaches 40006. Passmark results include 7615 in G3D, 3719 in GPU compute, 969 in G2D, 97 in DirectX 9, 73 in DirectX 11, 31 in DirectX 10, and 32 in DirectX 12.

The Radeon 880M’s nearest rivals in the database are all mobile-class GPUs. It sits 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (average score 8427), 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8458), 0.3% below the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462), and 1.3% above the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8325). These delta percentages indicate that the 880M performs within a narrow band of roughly 1.6% across these four competitors, making it a mid-tier mobile graphics solution rather than a high-performance outlier.

The MI350X, with no benchmarks, cannot be placed in any performance ranking. Its percentile of 50 is a default value, not a measured outcome. The data therefore shows that the Radeon 880M has a verified performance profile, while the MI350X’s performance remains entirely unquantified in this database. Any statement about the MI350X’s speed relative to the 880M would require assumptions unsupported by recorded measurements.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It contains 185,000 million transistors on a die size of 2380 mm², yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per square millimeter. The chip is designated MI350 256CU, and it belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. Its predecessor is the Radeon Instinct series.

The AMD Radeon 880M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 34,000 million transistors on a die size of 233 mm², giving a transistor density of 145.9 million per square millimeter. The chip is Strix Point, and it belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. Its predecessor is the Navi II IGP.

These are fundamentally different design philosophies. The MI350X is an accelerator module with 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and no raster output units. It reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s. The Radeon 880M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. It delivers a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s.

The MI350X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the Radeon 880M includes 12 ray tracing cores. Both have no tensor cores listed. The FP32 and FP16 compute rates for the MI350X are identical at 72.09 TFLOPS each, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The Radeon 880M also has a 1:1 ratio, with both FP32 and FP16 at 4.454 TFLOPS.

The MI350X uses HBM3e memory totaling 288 GB, with an 8192-bit bus width and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. Its memory clock is 2000 MHz, listed as 8 Gbps effective. The Radeon 880M uses system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory clock. Its memory type, bus width, and size are all listed as system shared or system dependent.

The MI350X is a 1000 W part with an OAM module slot width and no power connectors, requiring a suggested power supply of 1400 W. The Radeon 880M is a 15 W integrated graphics processor with an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested power supply. The MI350X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Radeon 880M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The MI350X has no display outputs, while the Radeon 880M’s display outputs are portable device dependent. The MI350X lists no supported APIs for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The Radeon 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350X have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists zero benchmarks for the MI350X, with an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50.

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Radeon 880M?

A: The Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8436, based on ten recorded test results across 3DMark, Geekbench, and Passmark suites.

Q: How does the Radeon 880M compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX?

A: The Radeon 880M scores 0.1% higher than the GTX 675MX, which has an average score of 8427.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two AMD parts?

A: The MI350X has a transistor density of 77.7 million per square millimeter, while the Radeon 880M has a density of 145.9 million per square millimeter.

Q: Which part has more shading units?

A: The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, whereas the Radeon 880M has 768 shading units.

Q: Does the MI350X support any graphics APIs?

A: The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI350X. The Radeon 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Instinct MI350X and the AMD Radeon 880M:

• Architecture: CDNA 4.0 versus RDNA 3.5
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile)
• Process node: 3 nm versus 4 nm
• Transistor count: 185,000 million versus 34,000 million
• Die size: 2380 mm² versus 233 mm²
• Transistor density: 77.7M / mm² versus 145.9M / mm²
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 400 MHz
• Boost clock: 2200 MHz versus 2900 MHz
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus system shared
• Memory size: 288 GB versus system shared
• Memory type: HBM3e versus system shared
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit versus system shared
• Memory bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus system dependent
• Shading units: 16384 versus 768
• Texture mapping units: 1024 versus 48
• Raster output units: 0 versus 16
• Ray tracing cores: not listed versus 12
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 46.40 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s
• FP32 compute: 72.09 TFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS
• FP16 compute: 72.09 TFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS
• TDP: 1000 W versus 15 W
• Slot width: OAM Module versus IGP
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus not listed
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display outputs: No outputs versus portable device dependent
• DirectX support: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL support: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan support: N/A versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 102 mm length, 165 mm width versus no dimensions listed
• Release date: 2025-06-11 versus 2024-07-14
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus Navi II IGP
• Production status: not listed versus Active
• Benchmark scores: none versus ten recorded tests
• Average benchmark score: 0 versus 8436
• Percentile rank: 50 versus 43

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350X wins on raw compute specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS is more than sixteen times the Radeon 880M’s 4.454 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s dwarfs the 880M’s 139.2 GTexel/s. The MI350X also holds massive advantages in memory capacity (288 GB versus system shared), memory bandwidth (8.19 TB/s versus system dependent), and bus width (8192 bit versus system shared). It has 16,384 shading units versus 768, and 1,024 texture mapping units versus 48.

The Radeon 880M wins on practical integration and feature completeness. It has 16 raster output units where the MI350X has none, and it includes 12 ray tracing cores where the MI350X lists none. The 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI350X reports N/A for all three APIs. The 880M delivers a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s for the MI350X, and it has display outputs, albeit portable device dependent. The 880M is also the only one of the two with recorded benchmark results, with an average score of 8436 and verified performance across ten tests.

The MI350X wins on power envelope in the sense of being a dedicated accelerator, but its 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested power supply are far above the 880M’s 15 W TDP. The 880M’s process node advantage in transistor density (145.9M / mm² versus 77.7M / mm²) indicates a more compact design per transistor, though the MI350X’s absolute transistor count is over five times larger.

In terms of release timing, the Radeon 880M launched on 2024-07-14, while the MI350X launched on 2025-06-11. The 880M is marked as active in production, while the MI350X has no production status listed.

The Verdict

The data shows two AMD products with opposite design targets. The Instinct MI350X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no benchmark scores. Its specifications point to massive parallel throughput for server or data center workloads, with 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, 288 GB of HBM3e memory, and an 8192-bit memory bus. The Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor for mobile devices, with 4.454 TFLOPS FP32, system shared memory, and full support for modern graphics APIs.

A user requiring high-throughput compute with large memory capacity would select the MI350X based on its specifications. Its 1024 texture mapping units and 16,384 shading units, combined with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, indicate a part designed for sustained heavy workloads. The absence of benchmark data means its real-world performance cannot be verified, but the recorded specifications place it in a different class entirely.

A user requiring a functional graphics solution with ray tracing, display outputs, and established benchmark results would select the Radeon 880M. Its 12 ray tracing cores, 16 raster output units, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it suitable for graphics rendering. Its ten recorded benchmark scores, with an average of 8436, place it slightly above the GTX 675MX and R9 M375X, and slightly below the MX330 and HD 8870M.

The MI350X cannot run graphics workloads as listed, with no display outputs and no API support. The Radeon 880M cannot match the MI350X’s raw compute specifications, with 4.454 TFLOPS versus 72.09 TFLOPS. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload requires compute acceleration or integrated graphics. The database provides no benchmark evidence that would change this assessment, as the MI350X has no measured scores and the 880M’s scores are only comparable to other mobile GPUs.