AMD Instinct MI350X vs Intel Arc Graphics 32EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two parts cannot be compared directly through shared benchmark runs, as the database contains no overlapping test results between the AMD Instinct MI350X and the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU. The AMD Instinct MI350X has no benchmark entries in the database, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has a single recorded result. That lone result is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733 points. This places the Intel part at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs tracked in the database, meaning 97% of recorded graphics processors score higher. The AMD Instinct MI350X, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, which reflects the absence of any runnable graphics tests rather than a measured performance level.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU's nearest rivals in the database are tightly clustered. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU both show an average score of 733, producing a delta of 0%. This indicates that, within the database's recorded results, the 32EU configuration performs identically to both the smaller 24EU and the larger 64EU variants in the Steel Nomad DX12 workload. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails with a score of 723, a delta of 1.4% behind the 32EU. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads the group slightly with 751 points, putting the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU 2.4% behind that older discrete part. These deltas are small enough to suggest that, in this specific test, all four parts occupy essentially the same performance tier.

Without any head-to-head benchmark entries and with zero wins recorded for either side, the database offers no direct numerical comparison between the MI350X and the 32EU. The MI350X is not represented by any runnable benchmark, and its 50th percentile ranking is a positional placeholder, not an observed score. The Intel part's 3rd percentile, meanwhile, is derived from actual test data. Any attempt to state which part is faster in a given workload would require inventing results, which the database does not support. The only honest conclusion from the benchmark section is that the MI350X has no measured graphics score, while the 32EU has one modest result that places it near the bottom of the database's distribution.

FAQ

Q: What is the only recorded benchmark score for the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU?

A: The database lists a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733 points for the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, with an average benchmark score of 733 and a 3rd percentile placement among all GPUs.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: It matches the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU exactly, both at 733 points with a 0% delta. It is 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6470M (723 points) and 2.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (751 points).

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

A: No. The MI350X has an empty benchmark list and an average benchmark score of 0, with a 50th percentile placement that is not derived from any recorded test.

Q: Which part has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X holds the 50th percentile, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU sits at the 3rd percentile. However, the MI350X percentile is based on no measured data, whereas the 32EU percentile comes from its actual Steel Nomad score.

Q: Are there any head-to-head benchmark results between these two products?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and both the win count for the MI350X and the win count for the 32EU are zero.

Q: What is the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU's average benchmark score?

A: The average benchmark score is 733, identical to its sole Steel Nomad DX12 result.

The Verdict

The database presents a lopsided but incomplete picture. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has a measurable result: 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, a 3rd percentile finish, and a tight cluster of rivals within roughly 2.4% in either direction. The AMD Instinct MI350X has no measured results at all, so its 50th percentile is a default position, not a performance statement. Based strictly on recorded data, the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is the only part of the two with a verified benchmark outcome. Anyone interpreting the database would be choosing between a product with one modest data point and a product with none. The 32EU's score indicates entry-level rendering capability, while the MI350X's empty record offers no evidence of any graphics workload performance. For a buyer deciding purely on benchmark evidence, the Intel part at least demonstrates a functional result in a DirectX 12 test; the AMD part demonstrates nothing in the database's test suite. The MI350X may be a more capable compute device by design, but the recorded data cannot confirm that, and no such claim can be made from the available numbers.

Specification Differences

The two products diverge sharply in nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Instinct MI350X uses a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU runs at 300 MHz base and 1950 MHz boost. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the MI350X carries 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, whereas the 32EU uses System Shared memory with a System Dependent bandwidth figure. The MI350X reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s; the 32EU reports 15.60 GPixel/s and 31.20 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 72.09 TFLOPS for the MI350X versus 998.4 GFLOPS for the 32EU. FP16 figures are 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) for the MI350X and 1.997 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Intel part. Power draw differs enormously: the MI350X is rated at 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the 32EU is rated at 65 W with no suggested PSU listed. The MI350X uses an OAM Module slot width and has no power connectors, while the 32EU is an IGP with no power connector data. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the AMD part and Ring Bus for the Intel part. Display outputs are absent on the MI350X and Motherboard Dependent on the 32EU. The MI350X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, while the 32EU has no recorded dimensions. Release dates differ as well: the MI350X launched on 2025-06-11, and the 32EU on 2024-10-23.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI350X is built on CDNA 4.0 architecture, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses Xe-LPG. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge massively. The MI350X packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7M per mm². The 32EU contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a density of 73.3M per mm². The MI350X uses the MI350 256CU chip and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the 32EU uses the Arrow Lake-S chip and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 0 ROPs; the 32EU has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Neither part lists RT cores or tensor cores in the database. API support is entirely different: the MI350X reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, whereas the 32EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X has no display outputs, consistent with a compute-oriented accelerator, while the 32EU's outputs are motherboard dependent, typical of an integrated processor graphics solution. The predecessor names also differ: the MI350X follows the Radeon Instinct line, and the 32EU follows HD Graphics-M. The MI350X is listed as an OAM Module, while the 32EU is an IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU wins in the only category with actual measured data: benchmark results. Its 733-point Steel Nomad DX12 score, however modest, is a verified data point. It also wins on API compatibility, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it provides display outputs, making it usable in systems that need graphics output. Its 65 W power draw is dramatically lower than the MI350X's 1000 W rating, and its IGP form factor requires no separate power connectors. The MI350X wins on raw compute specifications as recorded in the database: 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32, 288 GB of HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, and a 2200 MHz boost clock. It also holds a higher percentile placement at 50%, though that figure is not backed by any benchmark run. For rendering workloads with DirectX or Vulkan, the data points to the Intel part as the only one with evidence of functionality. For memory bandwidth and raw FP32 throughput, the MI350X's specifications dominate, but the database provides no test to confirm how those specifications translate into actual performance. The 32EU's nearest rivals, all within 2.4% of its score, suggest that its performance class is well established and tightly grouped. The MI350X has no comparable cluster, because no rival list exists for it. In practical terms, the 32EU is the only one of the two that the database can place in a real performance ranking, while the MI350X remains a specification sheet with an unverified 50th percentile marker.