AMD Instinct MI350X vs Intel Arc B580 Comparison

AMD Instinct MI350X and Intel Arc B580 occupy completely different corners of the GPU market. The MI350X is a 1000 W OAM accelerator built for compute centers, while the Arc B580 is a 190 W dual-slot consumer graphics card with a launch MSRP of 249 USD. The database contains no overlapping benchmark scores for these two products, so the comparison relies on architectural and specification analysis.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The record shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI350X and Intel Arc B580. The MI350X has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0. The Arc B580, in contrast, has ten recorded benchmark results and achieves a 68th percentile ranking against all GPUs.

The Arc B580's strongest recorded results come from compute and API-level tests. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 109672, and in Geekbench OpenCL it reaches 92821. The Passmark G3D test shows 15748, while Passmark GPU Compute records 7729. DirectX tests show more modest numbers: Passmark DirectX 11 scores 128, DirectX 9 scores 183, and both DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 record 76. The 2D test scores 709.

The Arc B580's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its average score of 23021. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP sits 0.2% behind with an average score of 23061, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 sits 0.6% behind at 22895, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 sits 0.7% ahead at 23172, and the NVIDIA P106-100 sits 1% ahead at 23249. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, placing the Arc B580 in a tight competitive cluster.

The MI350X's lack of recorded benchmarks means its percentile ranking of 50 reflects an absence of data rather than measured performance. The Arc B580's 68th percentile demonstrates that its recorded results place it above most GPUs in the database, but a direct numerical comparison between these two products cannot be made from the available data.

FAQ

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

A: The MI350X has an empty benchmarks array and an average benchmark score of 0. It has no recorded test results, while the Intel Arc B580 has ten recorded benchmark scores.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B580 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B580's average score of 23021 sits between the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP at 23061, which is 0.2% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 at 22895, which is 0.6% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is 0.7% ahead at 23172, and the NVIDIA P106-100 is 1% ahead at 23249.

Q: What is the performance gap between the two GPUs in compute workloads?

A: The MI350X has no compute benchmark scores recorded, so no quantitative gap can be established. The Arc B580 records 92821 in Geekbench OpenCL and 7729 in Passmark GPU Compute.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The MI350X has a transistor density of 77.7 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Arc B580 has 72.1 million per square millimeter. The MI350X is built on a 3 nm process, and the Arc B580 uses a 5 nm process, both from TSMC.

Q: What is the Arc B580's best and worst benchmark category?

A: Its best recorded score is 109672 in Geekbench Vulkan, and its lowest recorded scores are 76 in both Passmark DirectX 10 and Passmark DirectX 12.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e with a 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B580 uses 12 GB of GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus and 456.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a foundry but diverge in every architectural choice. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the MI350X uses a 3 nm process while the Arc B580 uses 5 nm. The MI350X is based on CDNA 4.0 architecture, designed for compute acceleration, while the Arc B580 uses Xe2-HPG, built for graphics rendering.

The chip designs reflect their different purposes. The MI350X uses the MI350 256CU chip with 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die. The Arc B580 uses the BMG-G21 chip with 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. The MI350X's transistor density of 77.7 million per square millimeter slightly exceeds the Arc B580's 72.1 million per square millimeter.

Compute resources are massively asymmetrical. The MI350X carries 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The Arc B580 has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. The MI350X has no dedicated ray tracing cores listed, while the Arc B580 includes 20 ray tracing cores. Neither product lists tensor cores in the database.

The MI350X's pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, reflecting its lack of display outputs and rendering pipeline. Its texture rate reaches 2,252.8 GTexel/s, compared to the Arc B580's 427.2 GTexel/s. Floating point performance shows the MI350X delivering 72.09 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, while the Arc B580 delivers 13.67 TFLOPS FP32 and 27.34 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio.

API support differs completely. The MI350X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, as it is not a graphics-oriented product. The Arc B580 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The MI350X and Arc B580 differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The MI350X uses a 3 nm process node, while the Arc B580 uses 5 nm. Transistor counts are 185,000 million versus 19,600 million. Die size is 2380 mm² versus 272 mm².

Clock behavior diverges sharply. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz running 8 Gbps effective. The Arc B580 has both base and boost clocks at 2670 MHz, with memory at 2375 MHz running 19 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity ranges from 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth on the MI350X, down to 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 456.0 GB/s bandwidth on the Arc B580. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Arc B580 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs.

The power envelope is the starkest differentiator. The MI350X draws 1000 W with a suggested power supply of 1400 W and no power connectors, as it uses an OAM module slot. The Arc B580 draws 190 W with a suggested power supply of 450 W and a single 8-pin connector.

Form factors are incompatible. The MI350X measures 102 mm by 165 mm and occupies an OAM Module slot. The Arc B580 measures 272 mm by 115 mm by 45 mm and uses a dual-slot configuration. The MI350X has no display outputs, while the Arc B580 provides one HDMI 2.1a port and three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The MI350X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, and the Arc B580 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Release dates are about six months apart. The MI350X launched on 2025-06-11, and the Arc B580 launched on 2024-12-12. The MI350X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, and the Arc B580's predecessor is Alchemist. The Arc B580 has an active production status, while the MI350X has no recorded production status.

The Verdict

The data indicates these products serve entirely separate markets with no direct competition. The MI350X is a compute accelerator with 288 GB of HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 performance, and a 1000 W power draw. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no recorded benchmark scores. The Arc B580 is a graphics card with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, 456.0 GB/s bandwidth, 13.67 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 190 W power draw, full display outputs, and complete DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support.

The Arc B580's recorded benchmarks place it in a competitive position against its nearest rivals. Its average score of 23021 is within 1% of the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, and NVIDIA P106-100. Its 68th percentile ranking reflects solid measured performance across ten tests.

The MI350X's 50th percentile ranking is a placeholder for an unmeasured product. Its specifications indicate compute capability far beyond the Arc B580's, but no benchmark data exists to quantify that advantage. The MI350X targets workloads requiring massive memory capacity and bandwidth, while the Arc B580 targets conventional graphics rendering.

Anyone selecting between these two products would be choosing based on use case, not performance comparison. The MI350X suits data center compute tasks that need its 288 GB memory pool and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B580 suits desktop graphics with its 12 GB memory, 192-bit bus, and 80 ROPs for rasterization. The MI350X cannot output video, and the Arc B580 cannot match the MI350X's memory capacity or compute throughput.

The database records no overlap in benchmarks, no shared API support, and no comparable form factors. The verdict follows the data: these are complementary products for different workloads, and the absence of head-to-head results confirms they are not rivals.