AMD Instinct MI350X vs Intel Arc A570M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI350X and the Intel Arc A570M. The AMD Instinct MI350X has zero recorded benchmark entries in our database, resulting in an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The Intel Arc A570M, by contrast, has one recorded benchmark result: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 58,239, which places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs.

Because there is no direct head-to-head data, the comparison must rely on architectural specifications and the single available benchmark for the Intel part. The Intel Arc A570M's OpenCL score of 58,239 sits within a narrow competitive band. The nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392, which is 0.3% faster, and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085, which is 0.3% slower. The NVIDIA P102-100 scores 58,528 (0.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 scores 58,657 (0.7% faster). These deltas are small, indicating that the Arc A570M performs in a tightly clustered range around 58,000 in this particular workload.

The AMD Instinct MI350X, with no recorded benchmarks, cannot be placed in this cluster or any other. The absence of data is itself a finding: the MI350X is a compute-accelerator product, not a consumer rendering GPU, and its benchmark profile in the database is empty. The Intel Arc A570M, as a mobile graphics solution, has a measurable result, but that result does not inform a direct comparison against the MI350X.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A570M wins in the only category with recorded data: benchmark presence and measured performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 58,239 confirms it can execute general compute workloads at a level comparable to desktop GPUs from the previous generation, as the rival deltas show. The A570M also delivers a pixel rate of 83.20 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 166.4 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput of 5.325 TFLOPS. These figures indicate a functioning rasterization pipeline with 64 ROPs and 128 TMUs, all within a 75 W TDP.

The AMD Instinct MI350X wins decisively on raw compute resources and memory capacity. Its FP32 throughput is 72.09 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is also 72.09 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel Arc A570M delivers FP16 at 10.65 TFLOPS, but with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, meaning its FP16 work is handled differently. The MI350X memory subsystem is on another scale: 288 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The A570M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s. The MI350X's memory bandwidth is roughly 36 times higher, though that figure is not directly recorded in the database and should be treated as an arithmetic observation from the listed bandwidths.

The MI350X also has far more shading units: 16,384 versus 2,048. Its texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s exceeds the A570M's 166.4 GTexel/s by more than an order of magnitude. Pixel rate, however, is recorded as 0 MPixel/s for the MI350X, and it has 0 ROPs, which indicates the architecture omits the traditional raster output stage entirely. The A570M has 64 ROPs and a 83.20 GPixel/s pixel rate, confirming it is designed for display output.

The Verdict

The data shows two products with fundamentally different design targets. The AMD Instinct MI350X is an accelerator with a 1000 W TDP, an OAM Module slot width, no display outputs, and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. It is not a graphics card in the conventional sense. Its 288 GB memory pool and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth position it for massive data-parallel workloads, and its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS indicates a compute-first design. The absence of ROPs and pixel rate confirms this.

The Intel Arc A570M is a mobile integrated graphics processor with a 75 W TDP, a 6 nm process, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 58,239 places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, directly between the Radeon RX 6950 XT and the Radeon RX 5600 OEM in the rival table. It is a functional, competitive mobile GPU for rendering and general compute.

A buyer choosing between these two would be selecting between incompatible use cases. The MI350X supports no display outputs and no consumer graphics APIs. The A570M supports all three major APIs and has display outputs dependent on the portable device. The MI350X has no benchmark results in the database; the A570M has one. From the recorded data alone, the A570M is the only one with demonstrated, measured performance. The MI350X's capabilities are inferred entirely from its specifications. Neither product outscores the other in a shared test, because no shared test exists.

FAQ

Q: What is the Intel Arc A570M's recorded benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A570M has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 58,239, which is its only recorded benchmark result and places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350X have any benchmark results?

A: No. The MI350X has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A570M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.3% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392), 0.5% slower than the NVIDIA P102-100 (58,528), 0.7% slower than the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657), and 0.3% faster than the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085).

Q: What memory configurations do the two products use?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The A570M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which product supports consumer graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Arc A570M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI350X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the power requirements of each product?

A: The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The A570M has a 75 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

Architecture Differences

The two products diverge at every architectural level. The AMD Instinct MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC, with a chip designated MI350 256CU. It contains 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7M per mm². The Intel Arc A570M uses the Xe-HPG architecture on TSMC's 6 nm process, with a DG2-256 chip. It contains 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, for a density of 42.8M per mm². The MI350X has more than 16 times the transistor count on nearly 9 times the die area.

Compute resources differ sharply. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The A570M has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The MI350X has no listed ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The MI350X's texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s, while its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s. The A570M's texture rate is 166.4 GTexel/s and its pixel rate is 83.20 GPixel/s. The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The A570M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS in FP32 and 10.65 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The A570M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: the MI350X runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the A570M runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

Physical and interface specifications confirm the divergent roles. The MI350X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, has no display outputs, and is packaged as an OAM Module measuring 102 mm by 165 mm. The A570M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, has display outputs dependent on the portable device, and is an IGP with no listed dimensions. The MI350X has no power connectors listed and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. The A570M has no power connector data and no suggested PSU.

Release timing places the MI350X in 2025 and the A570M in 2023. The MI350X's predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the A570M has no predecessor. The A570M's production status is active; the MI350X has no production status recorded. The MI350X has no launch MSRP in the database, and neither does the A570M. The architectural record shows a compute accelerator with no rendering path and a mobile graphics processor with a full rendering pipeline, and the benchmark data, such as it is, reflects only the latter.