AMD Instinct MI350X vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI350X and the Intel Arc A310E. Both products have an empty benchmark array and an average benchmark score of 0. Their percentile versus all GPUs is identical at 50, which indicates the database has not yet generated comparative performance metrics for this pairing.

Without measured scores, the data cannot show a definitive winner in compute workloads. The specifications, however, provide a stark contrast. The AMD Instinct MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. That places the MI350X at 23.46 times the FP32 throughput of the Arc A310E, a ratio derived directly from the recorded numbers. In FP16, the MI350X also outputs 72.09 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Arc A310E reaches 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The MI350X therefore holds a 11.73 times advantage in FP16 peak throughput.

Texture rate follows the same pattern. The MI350X sustains 2,252.8 GTexel/s, while the Arc A310E manages 64.00 GTexel/s. That is a 35.2 times gap in texturing throughput. Pixel rate is a special case: the MI350X records 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the Arc A310E achieves 32.00 GPixel/s. The Arc A310E is the only one of the two with a functional pixel output stage.

Memory bandwidth separates them further. The MI350X accesses 8.19 TB/s across an 8192-bit bus, against 124.0 GB/s on a 64-bit bus for the Arc A310E. The ratio is 66.05 times in favor of the MI350X. The Arc A310E compensates with a higher memory clock in effective transfer terms: 15.5 Gbps effective versus 8 Gbps effective for the MI350X, though the MI350X has a vastly wider interface.

The Verdict

The data indicates these are not competing products in any conventional sense. The AMD Instinct MI350X targets compute acceleration with a 1000 W TDP, an OAM module form factor, and no display outputs. The Intel Arc A310E is a 75 W single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, a DirectX 12 Ultimate API rating, and an end-of-life production status. Their architectures, memory subsystems, and physical designs place them in entirely different market segments.

For compute-intensive tasks, the MI350X dominates on every measured compute metric: FP32, FP16, texture rate, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity. It also has 16,384 shading units versus 768, and 1,024 TMUs versus 32. The Arc A310E wins on pixel rate, API support, display connectivity, and power requirements. A user needing graphics output or a low-power embedded solution would select the Arc A310E from the data. A user needing raw parallel computation would select the MI350X. The benchmark database offers no comparative scores, so the verdict rests solely on specification analysis.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, with 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die. The transistor density is 77.7 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. Its transistor density is 45.9 million per square millimeter. The MI350X therefore uses a smaller process node and a substantially larger die.

The MI350X has no ROPs, no ray tracing cores, and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. It is a pure compute accelerator with 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs. The Arc A310E includes 6 ray tracing cores, 16 ROPs, and full API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc A310E also has a pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s, while the MI350X records 0 MPixel/s.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI350X memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective transfer, while the Arc A310E runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective transfer. The MI350X has no display outputs; the Arc A310E has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in every major specification field. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The Arc A310E has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, meaning the Intel part runs at a higher base frequency but has no boost headroom.

Shading units: 16,384 on the MI350X versus 768 on the Arc A310E. TMUs: 1,024 versus 32. ROPs: 0 versus 16. The MI350X has no ray tracing cores; the Arc A310E has 6. FP32 performance: 72.09 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS. FP16 performance: 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 1000 W for the MI350X, 75 W for the Arc A310E. Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus 250 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus Single-slot. Power connectors: None for both. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI350X, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Arc A310E. Display outputs: No outputs versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.

Dimensions: the MI350X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width. The Arc A310E measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. Release dates: the MI350X launched on 2025-06-11, the Arc A310E on 2024-03-31. Production status: the MI350X has no recorded status; the Arc A310E is end-of-life. The Arc A310E has a successor (Battlemage), while the MI350X has none recorded. The MI350X predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the Arc A310E predecessor is Xe Graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS, which is 23.46 times the 3.072 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A310E.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A310E support display outputs?

A: Yes, the Arc A310E has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The AMD Instinct MI350X has no display outputs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory, while the Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 6 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI350X has no ray tracing cores recorded.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The MI350X achieves 8.19 TB/s over an 8192-bit bus, which is 66.05 times the 124.0 GB/s of the Arc A310E over a 64-bit bus.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350X wins on all raw compute metrics. Its 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 throughput, 2,252.8 GTexel/s texture rate, 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 288 GB memory capacity position it for large-scale parallel computation. The 8192-bit memory bus and 185,000 million transistors on a 3 nm process indicate a design optimized for data center workloads where memory-bound operations dominate. The lack of display outputs and API support confirms this orientation.

The Intel Arc A310E wins on graphics and integration. Its 32.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, 6 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs make it a functional graphics card. The 75 W TDP and single-slot form factor allow deployment in systems with modest power budgets. The 2:1 FP16 ratio (6.144 TFLOPS) indicates some accelerated compute capability, but the 4 GB memory and 64-bit bus limit large dataset processing. The end-of-life status and successor (Battlemage) suggest the Arc A310E is a legacy product, while the MI350X is current.

The database shows no benchmark scores for either product, so the wins are structural rather than measured. The MI350X wins every compute specification; the Arc A310E wins every display and API specification. For a system requiring graphics output, the Arc A310E is the only viable option. For a system requiring maximum parallel throughput, the MI350X is the clear choice. The 50th percentile ranking for both products reflects the absence of benchmark data rather than equivalence in performance.