AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon RX 9070 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data offers no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI350X and the AMD Radeon RX 9070. The head-to-head benchmark field is empty, and the MI350X has no benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals listed. The RX 9070, by contrast, has a full set of ten benchmark results across DirectX, OpenCL, Vulkan, and compute workloads.

The RX 9070 sits at the 69th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 23,877. Its nearest rivals are all within a narrow band: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z trails by 0.6 percent (23,736), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile trails by 1.1 percent (23,628), while the AMD Radeon RX 6800S leads by 0.8 percent (24,063) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER leads by 1.2 percent (24,170). These delta values indicate that the RX 9070's average score is tightly clustered with these four cards, all within roughly 1.2 percent of each other.

The MI350X, with a percentile of 50 and an average benchmark score of zero, cannot be placed in any comparative benchmark ranking. The data simply does not include any measured workloads for the accelerator. Any attempt to declare a head-to-head winner would be fabricated, which the data does not support. The only honest statement is that the RX 9070 has verified benchmark results while the MI350X does not.

Looking at the RX 9070's individual scores, the strongest result comes from Geekbench OpenCL at 131,539, which dwarfs its Vulkan score of 58,705 from the same suite. PassMark GPU compute delivers 14,737, while the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test produces 6,290. The DirectX 9 score of 343 is the highest among the PassMark DirectX tests, followed by DirectX 11 at 281, DirectX 10 at 141, and DirectX 12 at just 74. The PassMark G2D score of 1,280 and G3D score of 25,381 round out the set. These numbers establish a clear performance profile for the RX 9070, but no comparable profile exists for the MI350X.

Architecture Differences

The two AMD products share a manufacturer but diverge sharply in nearly every architectural dimension. The MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 9070 uses RDNA 4.0, built on a 4 nm process at the same foundry. The node difference translates into very different transistor budgets: the MI350X packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2,380 mm² die, yielding a density of 77.7 million transistors per mm². The RX 9070 uses 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, with a much higher density of 151.0 million per mm².

The MI350X implements 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, with a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, which makes sense for a compute accelerator with no display outputs. The RX 9070 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, with a texture rate of 564.5 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s. The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the RX 9070 delivers 36.13 TFLOPS in both, also at a 1:1 ratio. The MI350X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the RX 9070 includes 56 RT cores.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8,192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 9070 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s. The accelerator's memory bandwidth is more than twelve times greater, though the database does not provide an exact multiplier, only the raw figures. The MI350X memory clock is 2,000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the RX 9070 runs at 2,518 MHz with 20.1 Gbps effective.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI350X has a base clock of 1,000 MHz and a boost of 2,200 MHz, with no game clock listed. The RX 9070 has a base of 1,330 MHz, a boost of 2,520 MHz, and a game clock of 2,070 MHz. The RX 9070 runs at higher clocks across the board, which aligns with its consumer gaming focus.

The Verdict

The data cannot support a direct performance verdict because the MI350X has no benchmark scores. The RX 9070, however, is a verified performer at the 69th percentile, with an average score of 23,877 that places it just above the GTX TITAN Z and RTX 3080 Mobile, and just below the RX 6800S and RTX 2080 SUPER. The MI350X sits at the 50th percentile with zero recorded scores, which means the database treats it as unmeasured rather than slow.

The MI350X is positioned for compute workloads. It uses CDNA 4.0, has 288 GB of HBM3e, a 1,000 W TDP, an OAM module slot width, no display outputs, and no graphics API support (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all listed as N/A). It is not a consumer graphics card. The RX 9070 is a Radeon RX 9000 series product with full API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), dual-slot cooling, 2x 8-pin power connectors, a 220 W TDP, and display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a. It is actively in production, with a launch MSRP of 549 USD.

For any graphics workload, the RX 9070 is the only option with data. For any massive memory bandwidth or compute-scale task, the MI350X's specifications (288 GB, 8.19 TB/s, 72.09 TFLOPS) suggest a different class of hardware, but the database has no measured results to confirm its actual performance. The verdict is therefore asymmetric: the RX 9070 has proven results, the MI350X does not.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products:

• Architecture: CDNA 4.0 (MI350X) vs RDNA 4.0 (RX 9070)
• Process node: 3 nm (MI350X) vs 4 nm (RX 9070)
• Transistors: 185,000 million vs 53,900 million
• Die size: 2,380 mm² vs 357 mm²
• Transistor density: 77.7M / mm² vs 151.0M / mm²
• Base clock: 1,000 MHz vs 1,330 MHz
• Boost clock: 2,200 MHz vs 2,520 MHz
• Game clock: not listed vs 2,070 MHz
• Memory clock: 2,000 MHz 8 Gbps effective vs 2,518 MHz 20.1 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 288 GB vs 16 GB
• Memory type: HBM3e vs GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 8,192 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s vs 644.6 GB/s
• Shading units: 16,384 vs 3,584
• TMUs: 1,024 vs 224
• ROPs: 0 vs 128
• RT cores: not listed vs 56
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s vs 322.6 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 2,252.8 GTexel/s vs 564.5 GTexel/s
• FP32: 72.09 TFLOPS vs 36.13 TFLOPS
• FP16: 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 36.13 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 1,000 W vs 220 W
• Slot width: OAM Module vs Dual-slot
• Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 1,400 W vs 550 W
• Display outputs: No outputs vs 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a
• DirectX support: N/A vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL support: N/A vs 4.6
• Vulkan support: N/A vs 1.4
• Dimensions: 102 mm length, 165 mm width vs not listed
• Production status: not listed vs Active
• Release date: 2025-06-11 vs 2025-03-05
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct vs Navi III
• Launch MSRP: not listed vs 549 USD

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark percentile?

A: The RX 9070 sits at the 69th percentile among all GPUs, while the MI350X sits at the 50th percentile. However, the MI350X has zero recorded benchmark scores, so its percentile reflects no measured data.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The RX 9070 has an average benchmark score of 23,877 across ten tests. The MI350X has an average score of 0, with no tests recorded.

Q: How does the RX 9070 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 9070 trails the AMD Radeon RX 6800S by 0.8 percent (24,063) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER by 1.2 percent (24,170). It leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z by 0.6 percent (23,736) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile by 1.1 percent (23,628).

Q: What memory configurations do the two products use?

A: The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8,192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 9070 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The RX 9070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X lists all three APIs as N/A.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1,000 W with a suggested PSU of 1,400 W and no power connectors (OAM module). The RX 9070 has a TDP of 220 W, a suggested PSU of 550 W, and uses 2x 8-pin connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 9070 wins in every measured benchmark category because it is the only product with recorded data. It has ten benchmark scores, an average of 23,877, and a 69th percentile ranking. Its closest competitor in the database, the RX 6800S, beats it by only 0.8 percent, while the RTX 2080 SUPER beats it by 1.2 percent. On the other side, it beats the GTX TITAN Z by 0.6 percent and the RTX 3080 Mobile by 1.1 percent. This places it in a tight competitive cluster where no single rival dominates by more than a couple of percentage points.

The MI350X wins in raw specification categories. It has more shading units (16,384 vs 3,584), more TMUs (1,024 vs 224), a larger die (2,380 mm² vs 357 mm²), more transistors (185,000 million vs 53,900 million), higher FP32 and FP16 throughput (both 72.09 TFLOPS vs 36.13 TFLOPS), and vastly larger memory (288 GB vs 16 GB) with higher bandwidth (8.19 TB/s vs 644.6 GB/s). Its texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s is nearly four times the RX 9070's 564.5 GTexel/s, though its pixel rate is zero because it has no ROPs.

For use cases, the RX 9070 is the clear choice for any graphics rendering, gaming, or API-dependent workload. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, has 128 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and display outputs for HDMI 2.1b and DisplayPort 2.1a. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth serve consumer workloads, and its 220 W TDP fits a standard dual-slot card with 2x 8-pin power.

The MI350X is designed for compute and data center tasks. Its 288 GB HBM3e pool and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth target large model training or inference workloads. Its 1,000 W TDP and OAM module form factor require server infrastructure. The absence of display outputs and graphics API support confirms it is not intended for any visual output. The data does not include compute-specific benchmarks for the MI350X, so its actual performance in such workloads remains unverified in the database.

The split is clean: the RX 9070 wins where measurements exist, and the MI350X wins where specifications matter. No direct comparison is possible, and the data does not support any claim that one outperforms the other in a shared workload.