AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Instinct MI350X and AMD Radeon RX 7400 occupy entirely different segments of the GPU spectrum, and the recorded data reflects this clearly. The MI350X carries a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database, while the RX 7400 sits at percentile 17. This gap in relative standing is reinforced by the fact that the MI350X has no recorded benchmark scores, whereas the RX 7400 has an average benchmark score of 2467 across eight tests. The RX 7400's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 8040S at 2440 (1.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce 710M at 2433 (1.4% higher), the Intel HD Graphics 610 at 2425 (1.8% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M at 2422 (1.9% higher). These margins indicate that the RX 7400 is clustered with low-end mobile and integrated graphics solutions, not with data center accelerators.

The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, whereas the RX 7400 delivers 16.49 TFLOPS. That is a 4.37x advantage in raw single-precision throughput for the MI350X. In FP16, the MI350X again posts 72.09 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 7400 reaches 32.97 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. Here the MI350X leads by 2.19x. The texture rate for the MI350X is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 257.6 GTexel/s for the RX 7400, an 8.74x difference. The pixel rate comparison flips: the MI350X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the RX 7400 achieves 147.2 GPixel/s with 64 ROPs. This is a critical distinction; the MI350X cannot rasterize at all, while the RX 7400 is fully capable of traditional graphics output.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story to compute. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s. The RX 7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 across a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. The MI350X leads bandwidth by 28.4x. Memory capacity differs by 36x in favor of the MI350X. The RX 7400's nearest rivals show that its memory subsystem is modest: the Radeon 8040S, GeForce 710M, HD Graphics 610, and GT 710M all have average scores within 1.9% of the RX 7400, indicating that this class of GPU competes with entry-level parts.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350X wins decisively in every compute-oriented metric recorded. Its FP32 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS is 4.37x higher than the RX 7400's 16.49 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS is 2.19x higher than the RX 7400's 32.97 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s is 8.74x higher. The memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is 28.4x higher. These figures point to workloads that are memory-bound and arithmetic-bound: large matrix operations, dense inference, and data center-scale parallel processing. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs, which support its high throughput numbers. Its architecture, CDNA 4.0, is designed for computation rather than display output. The lack of ROPs and the absence of display outputs confirm this orientation.

The RX 7400 wins in every graphics-oriented metric recorded. It has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s, while the MI350X has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The RX 7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI350X lists N/A for all three APIs. The RX 7400 has display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the MI350X has no outputs. The RX 7400's ray tracing capability is present through 28 RT cores, whereas the MI350X lists no RT cores. The RX 7400's 8 GB GDDR6 memory is sufficient for its target use case of rendering frames to a screen. Its FP16 ratio of 2:1 indicates a graphics-oriented design where half-precision throughput is doubled relative to FP32, a common trait in RDNA architectures.

The benchmark results for the RX 7400 show its strongest performance in DirectX 9 with a score of 176, which is 4x higher than its DirectX 12 score of 44. Its Passmark G3D score is 11897, while its Passmark G2D score is 1209 and its compute score is 5152. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1103. These numbers place the RX 7400 in the lower quartile of the database, with its nearest rivals all within 1.9% of its average score. The MI350X has no benchmark entries, so its wins are inferred from its architectural specifications rather than direct test results.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses the MI350 256CU chip built on CDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated 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 77.7M per mm². The RX 7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 13,300 million transistors on a die size of 204 mm², yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The MI350X has 13.9x more transistors and an 11.7x larger die.

The clock speeds differ in character. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The RX 7400 has a base clock of 1452 MHz, a boost clock of 2300 MHz, and a game clock of 2200 MHz. The RX 7400 runs at higher clocks, but the MI350X compensates with far more compute units. The MI350X's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the RX 7400's memory clock is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The effective data rate is higher on the RX 7400, but the bus width difference (8192 bit versus 128 bit) dominates the bandwidth comparison.

The MI350X features HBM3e memory, which is stacked and designed for high bandwidth. The RX 7400 features GDDR6, which is traditional discrete memory. The MI350X has 16384 shading units and 1024 TMUs, while the RX 7400 has 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs. The MI350X has 0 ROPs, while the RX 7400 has 64. The RX 7400 has 28 RT cores; the MI350X has none listed. Neither has tensor cores listed. The MI350X is a compute accelerator with no display path, while the RX 7400 carries full display outputs and API support.

Power consumption differs drastically. The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, with no power connectors because it is an OAM module. The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W, with a single 6-pin connector. The MI350X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI350X is 102 mm long and 165 mm wide, while the RX 7400 has no recorded dimensions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 4.37x higher than the RX 7400's 16.49 TFLOPS.

Q: Can either GPU be used for traditional gaming with a monitor?

A: The RX 7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1). The MI350X has no display outputs and lists N/A for all graphics APIs.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power requirement for each card?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the RX 7400 in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon 8040S has an average score of 2440 (1.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce 710M has 2433 (1.4% higher), the Intel HD Graphics 610 has 2425 (1.8% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M has 2422 (1.9% higher).

Q: Does the MI350X support ray tracing?

A: The MI350X has no RT cores listed, while the RX 7400 has 28 RT cores. The MI350X is not designed for ray-traced graphics rendering.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification. The MI350X uses a 3 nm process, while the RX 7400 uses a 6 nm process. The MI350X has 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, while the RX 7400 has 13,300 million on 204 mm². The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and boost of 2200 MHz, while the RX 7400 has a base of 1452 MHz, boost of 2300 MHz, and a game clock of 2200 MHz. Memory type differs: HBM3e versus GDDR6. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. Memory size is 288 GB versus 8 GB.

Shading units are 16384 versus 1792. TMUs are 1024 versus 112. ROPs are 0 versus 64. RT cores are none versus 28. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 147.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 257.6 GTexel/s. FP32 is 72.09 TFLOPS versus 16.49 TFLOPS. FP16 is 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 32.97 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 1000 W versus 43 W. Slot width is OAM module versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 1400 W versus 200 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are none versus 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. APIs are N/A versus DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X has dimensions of 102 mm length and 165 mm width, while the RX 7400 has no recorded dimensions.

Release dates differ by approximately two months: the MI350X released on 2025-06-11, and the RX 7400 released on 2025-08-07. The MI350X lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct, while the RX 7400 lists its predecessor as Navi II and its successor as Navi IV. The MI350X has a percentile rank of 50 and an average benchmark score of 0 with no benchmark entries, while the RX 7400 has a percentile rank of 17 and an average benchmark score of 2467 across eight tests.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these two GPUs are not competitors. The MI350X is a data center compute accelerator with 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, 288 GB of HBM3e, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no ROPs. Its 1000 W TDP and OAM form factor are designed for server racks, not desktop systems. The RX 7400 is a low-power desktop graphics card with 16.49 TFLOPS FP32, 8 GB of GDDR6, and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. It has full display outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and 28 RT cores. Its 43 W TDP allows operation with a 200 W power supply.

The MI350X wins on compute throughput, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and texture rate by margins ranging from 2.19x to 28.4x. The RX 7400 wins on pixel rate (147.2 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s), API support, display connectivity, and ray tracing capability. For workloads involving large-scale numerical computation, the MI350X is the clear choice based on its throughput numbers. For workloads involving rasterization, frame rendering, or any visual output, the RX 7400 is the only option with the required hardware.

The RX 7400's position in the database is clear: its average benchmark score of 2467 places it near the AMD Radeon 8040S, NVIDIA GeForce 710M, Intel HD Graphics 610, and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M, all within 1.9% margins. This group represents entry-level graphics performance. The MI350X has no benchmark scores, so its percentile rank of 50 is based on its specification profile rather than test results. The recorded data shows a fundamental split: the MI350X is a compute engine, and the RX 7400 is a graphics card. Each serves a distinct purpose, and neither can substitute for the other in its intended role.