AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for this comparison is unusual: the AMD Instinct MI350X has no benchmark entries in the database, while the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT has a full set of ten benchmark scores. The MI350X therefore cannot be directly compared on any common test. Its percentile rank of 50 places it at the midpoint of all GPUs, but with an average benchmark score of zero and no nearest rivals listed, the database contains no measured performance evidence for it. The RX 7700 XT, by contrast, holds a percentile rank of 67, above the MI350X, and its average benchmark score of 22549 reflects actual results across multiple tests.

For the RX 7700 XT, the strongest recorded result is in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 138383, far exceeding its other entries. Its PassMark G3D score of 22547 is nearly equal to its overall average, indicating that test dominates the aggregate. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 3316, PassMark DirectX 11 score of 232, and PassMark DirectX 10 score of 119 show a progressive drop in performance under older or lighter API loads. The PassMark DirectX 9 score of 294 is actually higher than the DirectX 11 score, which is an unusual pattern. Compute workloads produce a PassMark GPU Compute score of 12912, roughly half the G3D score, suggesting compute throughput is respectable but not the card's primary strength. Geekbench Vulkan returns 46443, about a third of the OpenCL score, which indicates Vulkan performance is substantially lower than OpenCL for this GPU.

The nearest rivals for the RX 7700 XT provide context. Its average score of 22549 sits 0.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile (22435), 0.8% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile (22729), 1.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (22895), and 1.7% above the AMD Radeon RX 5700 (22170). These deltas are all within roughly two percent, placing the RX 7700 XT in a tightly clustered performance band. The MI350X has no such rival data, so no relative positioning can be established for it.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Instinct MI350X have no benchmark scores in the database?

A: The MI350X has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile rank of 50 is a default midpoint value, not a result derived from measurements. The RX 7700 XT has ten recorded scores, giving it a percentile rank of 67 and an average benchmark score of 22549.

Q: What is the RX 7700 XT's best and worst benchmark result?

A: Its best score is 138383 in Geekbench OpenCL. Its worst recorded score is 79 in PassMark DirectX 12, which is notably lower than its PassMark DirectX 10 score of 119, DirectX 11 score of 232, and DirectX 9 score of 294.

Q: How does the RX 7700 XT compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database lists four rivals. The RX 7700 XT is 0.5% ahead of the RTX 5060 Mobile, 1.7% ahead of the RX 5700, 0.8% behind the RTX 4060 Mobile, and 1.5% behind the RTX 2080. All deltas are within 1.7 percentage points.

Q: Does the MI350X have any display outputs?

A: No. The MI350X lists "No outputs" for display outputs, making it unsuitable for direct monitor connection. The RX 7700 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C.

Q: What is the RX 7700 XT's production status?

A: The RX 7700 XT has a production status of "Active." The MI350X has no production status listed in the database.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The MI350X has a memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s, which is far higher than the RX 7700 XT's 432.0 GB/s. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, while the RX 7700 XT uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural families. The MI350X uses CDNA 4.0, AMD's compute-optimized architecture, while the RX 7700 XT uses RDNA 3.0, designed for graphics rendering. This fundamental split explains nearly every other difference between them.

The MI350X is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die. The RX 7700 XT uses TSMC's 5 nm process with 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die. The MI350X has a transistor density of 77.7M per mm², while the RX 7700 XT has a slightly higher density of 81.2M per mm² despite the larger process node. The MI350X's enormous die and transistor count reflect a design aimed at massive parallel compute, not graphical output.

The MI350X has 16384 shading units and 1024 texture mapping units, with 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. It cannot rasterize graphics at all. The RX 7700 XT has 3456 shading units, 216 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and a pixel rate of 244.2 GPixel/s. The RX 7700 XT also has 54 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the MI350X's specification. The MI350X has no RT cores listed, no tensor cores listed, and no API support: DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all marked N/A. The RX 7700 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Compute throughput tells the same story. The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7700 XT delivers 35.17 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, also at 1:1. The MI350X's texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 549.5 GTexel/s for the RX 7700 XT. The MI350X's compute figures are roughly double those of the RX 7700 XT, but it cannot output video or run graphics APIs.

Memory architecture differs radically. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit interface with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7700 XT uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit interface with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI350X's memory configuration is nearly 24 times larger in capacity and roughly 19 times higher in bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The process node differs: the MI350X uses 3 nm, the RX 7700 XT uses 5 nm. Both use TSMC as foundry, but transistor counts differ greatly: 185,000 million for the MI350X versus 28,100 million for the RX 7700 XT. Die size is 2380 mm² for the MI350X and 346 mm² for the RX 7700 XT.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, with no game clock listed. The RX 7700 XT has a base clock of 1435 MHz, a boost clock of 2544 MHz, and a game clock of 2171 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the MI350X runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the RX 7700 XT runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Power and cooling requirements diverge sharply. The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, with no power connectors listed and a slot width of OAM Module. The RX 7700 XT has a TDP of 245 W, a suggested PSU of 550 W, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and is a dual-slot card. Physical dimensions reflect this: the MI350X is 102 mm long and 165 mm wide, while the RX 7700 XT is 267 mm long, 135 mm tall, and 50 mm wide.

Bus interface and display outputs differ. The MI350X uses PCIe 5.0 x16 with no display outputs. The RX 7700 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16 with 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C. The RX 7700 XT also has a full API set, while the MI350X has none.

Release dates differ by nearly two years. The RX 7700 XT was released on 2023-09-05, while the MI350X was released on 2025-06-11. The RX 7700 XT belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series with the Navi 32 chip and the codename Wheat Nas, while the MI350X uses the MI350 256CU chip and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7700 XT wins in every measured category because it is the only card with recorded data. Its ten benchmark scores cover DirectX 9 through 12, OpenCL, Vulkan, 2D, 3D, and compute workloads. Its percentile rank of 67 places it above the MI350X's rank of 50. For any graphics workload, the RX 7700 XT is the only viable choice from this pair, since the MI350X has no display outputs and no graphics API support.

The MI350X wins in compute-oriented specifications. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS is double the RX 7700 XT's 35.17 TFLOPS. Its memory capacity of 288 GB and bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s vastly exceed the RX 7700 XT's 12 GB and 432.0 GB/s. Its 16384 shading units and 1024 TMUs dwarf the RX 7700 XT's 3456 shading units and 216 TMUs. Its texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s is over four times the RX 7700 XT's 549.5 GTexel/s. These numbers indicate the MI350X is designed for data-center scale compute tasks where graphics output is irrelevant.

The RX 7700 XT wins on practical usability. It has a production status of Active, while the MI350X has none listed. It supports three graphics APIs with specific version numbers, while the MI350X supports none. It has display outputs, while the MI350X has none. It fits in a dual-slot form factor with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU, while the MI350X requires an OAM Module slot and a 1400 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the RX 7700 XT is the only card with any benchmark results, and it is the only card that can output video or run graphics APIs. For anyone building a system that must display images, run DirectX or Vulkan applications, or use a standard PCIe slot, the RX 7700 XT is the only option with evidence of functionality. Its benchmark scores show it performing within 1.7% of four rival GPUs, all clustered around the 22,000 to 23,000 average score range. Its 67th percentile rank confirms it sits above the majority of all GPUs in the database.

The MI350X, despite its lack of measured benchmarks, has specifications that point to a different purpose entirely. Its 1000 W TDP, 288 GB HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and 72.09 TFLOPS compute are not consumer graphics figures. They are data-center compute figures. The absence of display outputs and graphics API support makes this explicit: the MI350X is not a graphics card, it is an accelerator for compute workloads. Its 50th percentile rank reflects no recorded performance, so it cannot be positioned against the RX 7700 XT on any benchmark.

For a workstation or gaming PC, the RX 7700 XT is the only defensible choice from this pair. It has measured performance, active production status, a standard dual-slot form factor, and full graphics support. For a compute cluster where graphics output is not needed and memory capacity and bandwidth are primary concerns, the MI350X has the specifications that matter: 24 times the memory capacity, roughly 19 times the memory bandwidth, double the FP32 throughput, and over four times the texture rate. The database contains no benchmark evidence for the MI350X, so any comparison of actual workload performance is impossible. The recorded data simply confirms that these two AMD products target entirely different markets and should not be considered substitutes for one another.