AMD Instinct MI350X vs Intel Arc 140V Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350X and Intel Arc 140V Mobile occupy entirely different segments of the GPU market, and the recorded data reflects this divide. The MI350X is a compute-oriented accelerator with a 1000 W TDP, designed for server applications where raw throughput matters most. The Arc 140V Mobile is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 37 W TDP, built for portable devices where power efficiency and display output are priorities.

The MI350X wins decisively in every raw compute category. Its FP32 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS dwarfs the Arc 140V's 3.994 TFLOPS, a gap of roughly 18x. FP16 performance shows a similar pattern: the MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Arc 140V manages 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1). Texture rate follows suit, with the MI350X reaching 2,252.8 GTexel/s against the Arc 140V's 124.8 GTexel/s.

The Arc 140V wins in areas the MI350X cannot compete in at all. The MI350X has no display outputs, no DirectX support, no OpenGL support, and no Vulkan support. The Arc 140V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it functional for graphics rendering and display tasks. The Arc 140V also has a pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s, while the MI350X records 0 MPixel/s. For any use case involving rendering to a screen, the Arc 140V is the only viable option between the two.

The MI350X's memory configuration is another clear win. It carries 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc 140V uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, which cannot match the dedicated capacity or speed of the MI350X. The MI350X also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Arc 140V connects via an IGP bus.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a manufacturing process: both use a 3 nm node from TSMC. Beyond that, their architectures diverge completely. The MI350X uses AMD's CDNA 4.0 architecture, built for compute acceleration. The Arc 140V uses Intel's Xe2-LPG architecture, designed for mobile graphics.

The chip-level specifications highlight the scale difference. The MI350X is built around the MI350 256CU chip with 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 77.7M per mm². The Arc 140V uses the Lunar Lake chip with a 172 mm² die and an unknown transistor count. The MI350X's die is roughly 13.8x larger, and its transistor count is orders of magnitude higher.

Compute resources differ substantially. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units, with 0 ROPs. The Arc 140V has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI350X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the Arc 140V includes 8 ray tracing cores. The MI350X does not report tensor cores; the Arc 140V also leaves tensor cores null in the database.

Clocks show different design priorities. The MI350X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The Arc 140V runs at a 300 MHz base and 1950 MHz boost. The MI350X's memory operates at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the Arc 140V's memory is system-shared. The MI350X has no power connectors and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU; the Arc 140V has no power connector specification and no suggested PSU.

Physical form factors differ as well. The MI350X is an OAM module measuring 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width. The Arc 140V is an IGP with no recorded dimensions. The MI350X has no display outputs; the Arc 140V's display outputs are portable-device dependent. Release dates also differ: the MI350X launched on 2025-06-11, while the Arc 140V launched on 2024-09-23.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products. Both record an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile score of 50 against all GPUs. With no benchmark results logged, the comparison relies on the recorded specification data.

The FP32 throughput gap is the most decisive figure. The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS, while the Arc 140V delivers 3.994 TFLOPS. This means the MI350X provides approximately 18x the FP32 compute. In FP16, the MI350X's 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) is roughly 9x the Arc 140V's 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1), though the ratio changes because the Arc 140V uses a 2:1 FP16 rate.

Texture rate shows a similar scale. The MI350X reaches 2,252.8 GTexel/s, while the Arc 140V reaches 124.8 GTexel/s, an 18x difference. The pixel rate comparison is one-sided: the Arc 140V records 62.40 GPixel/s, while the MI350X records 0 MPixel/s.

Memory bandwidth is another clear separator. The MI350X has 8.19 TB/s of dedicated HBM3e bandwidth on a 8192-bit interface. The Arc 140V's bandwidth is marked as system dependent, which means it varies with the host platform and cannot match the MI350X's dedicated throughput.

The MI350X's 288 GB memory capacity is a major advantage for large workloads. The Arc 140V uses system-shared memory, which is limited by the host system's RAM. The MI350X also has a higher boost clock at 2200 MHz versus the Arc 140V's 1950 MHz.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two products differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI350X | Intel Arc 140V Mobile |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | Xe2-LPG |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) |

| Chip | MI350 256CU | Lunar Lake |

| Transistors | 185,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 2380 mm² | 172 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 77.7M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 1950 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 288 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 16384 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 64 |

| ROPs | 0 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | null | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 62.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,252.8 GTexel/s | 124.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 72.09 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 37 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 102 mm length, 165 mm width | null |

| Production Status | null | Active |

| Release Date | 2025-06-11 | 2024-09-23 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | HD Graphics-M |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS, which is approximately 18x higher than the Intel Arc 140V Mobile's 3.994 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350X support display output?

A: No. The MI350X has no display outputs, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile has display outputs that are portable device dependent.

Q: What API support does each processor offer?

A: The MI350X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. The Arc 140V Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc 140V Mobile uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The MI350X boosts to 2200 MHz, while the Arc 140V Mobile boosts to 1950 MHz.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Arc 140V Mobile has a 37 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.