AMD Instinct MI350X vs Intel Arc Graphics 24EU Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI350X and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU occupy opposite extremes of the GPU spectrum, and the recorded data shows no meaningful competition between them. The MI350X is a 1000 W OAM compute accelerator built for massive parallel workloads, while the Arc 24EU is a 65 W integrated graphics processor for everyday desktop use. The database places the MI350X at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, although it carries no benchmark scores of its own. The Arc 24EU sits at the 3rd percentile, with a single recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. For users needing high-throughput compute, the MI350X is the only choice based on its specifications. For basic display output and light 3D acceleration in a low-power system, the Arc 24EU is the functional option. The data does not support any scenario where these two compete directly.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 2380 mm² and 185,000 million transistors. Its transistor density is 77.7 million per mm². The chip is labeled "MI350 256CU," and the architecture is specifically designed for compute acceleration. The Arc 24EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the same 3 nm TSMC process, but with a much smaller die of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors, resulting in a density of 73.3 million per mm². The Arc is built on the Arrow Lake-S chip and targets integrated graphics duties.

The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, which means it is not designed for rasterized display output. Its pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s. The Arc 24EU has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 6 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s. The MI350X supports no graphics APIs, while the Arc 24EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X has no display outputs, while the Arc's outputs are motherboard dependent. The MI350X connects via PCIe 5.0 x16 and uses an OAM module slot, whereas the Arc uses a Ring Bus interface and is an IGP.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The MI350X runs at a base of 1000 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz. The Arc 24EU runs at 300 MHz base and boosts to 2000 MHz. Memory configurations are completely different: the MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, while the Arc uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The MI350X's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective. The Arc has no dedicated memory clock listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between these two parts, and the MI350X has no individual benchmark entries. The Arc 24EU has one recorded score: 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Comparing their nearest rivals provides context. The Arc 24EU's closest competitors include the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU, both with identical average scores of 733 and a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4 percent lower than the Arc 24EU. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, putting the Arc 24EU 2.4 percent behind. These margins are small, indicating that the Arc 24EU performs roughly on par with other low-end integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs from older generations.

The MI350X's theoretical compute output is listed as 72.09 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1), with a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s. The Arc 24EU delivers 768.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 1.536 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), with a texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s. Converting units, the MI350X provides roughly 94 times the FP32 throughput of the Arc 24EU. Its texture rate is approximately 94 times higher as well. The MI350X has no ROPs, so its pixel rate is zero, while the Arc handles 12 GPixel/s. The MI350X's memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s dwarfs any system shared memory arrangement, though the Arc's bandwidth is listed as system dependent and therefore not directly comparable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU delivers 768.0 GFLOPS FP32. The MI350X is roughly 94 times higher in FP32 performance.

Q: Does the MI350X support display outputs?

A: No. The MI350X is listed with no display outputs, and its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs. The Arc 24EU has motherboard dependent display outputs and a 12.00 GPixel/s pixel rate.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Arc 24EU has a TDP of 65 W with no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU supports more graphics APIs?

A: The Arc 24EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: How does the Arc 24EU compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Arc 24EU scores 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU both score 733 with a 0 percent delta. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, 1.4 percent lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, 2.4 percent higher.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc 24EU uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1) performance, 2,252.8 GTexel/s texture rate, and 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth make it suitable for high-performance computing, AI training, and large-scale scientific workloads. The lack of display outputs and ROPs confirms its role as a pure accelerator. The 288 GB HBM3e memory capacity on an 8192-bit bus provides enormous data handling capability. The 1000 W TDP and OAM module form factor indicate a server or data center installation.

The Arc 24EU wins in integrated graphics utility. It provides 12.00 GPixel/s pixel throughput, 24.00 GTexel/s texture rate, and 768.0 GFLOPS FP32, which is sufficient for basic desktop rendering, video playback, and light 3D applications. Its 65 W TDP allows it to operate within a standard desktop processor's power envelope. The support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can run modern graphics workloads that the MI350X cannot handle at all. The motherboard dependent display outputs make it a practical solution for systems without a discrete GPU.

The data shows no overlap in use cases. The MI350X offers no graphics API support, no display outputs, and zero pixel rate, making it unsuitable for any conventional display task. The Arc 24EU offers negligible compute throughput relative to the MI350X, but it fulfills the basic graphics functions that the MI350X completely lacks. The benchmark score of 733 for the Arc 24EU places it among other low-end GPUs, but that score is absent for the MI350X, meaning the database has no direct performance measurement for it. The 50th percentile ranking for the MI350X versus the 3rd percentile for the Arc 24EU reflects the different performance tiers these parts occupy.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification. The MI350X uses the MI350 256CU chip with CDNA 4.0 architecture, while the Arc 24EU uses the Arrow Lake-S chip with Xe-LPG architecture. Both use a 3 nm TSMC process, but the MI350X has 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, while the Arc 24EU has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Transistor density is 77.7M per mm² for the MI350X and 73.3M per mm² for the Arc.

The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz, while the Arc runs at 300 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost. Memory differs completely: the MI350X has 288 GB HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, while the Arc uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The MI350X's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, and the Arc has no dedicated memory clock.

Shading units number 16,384 on the MI350X versus 192 on the Arc. TMUs are 1024 versus 12. ROPs are 0 on the MI350X and 6 on the Arc. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 72.09 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS. FP16 is 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 1.536 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power draw is 1000 W for the MI350X and 65 W for the Arc. The MI350X uses an OAM Module slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Arc is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. Bus interfaces are PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI350X and Ring Bus for the Arc. Display outputs are absent on the MI350X and motherboard dependent on the Arc. API support is N/A on the MI350X and includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 on the Arc. The MI350X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, while the Arc has no listed dimensions. Release dates differ: the MI350X launched on 2025-06-11, and the Arc launched on 2024-10-23. The MI350X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, and the Arc lists HD Graphics. Both have no successor listed. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.