AMD Instinct MI350X vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not include a direct head-to-head benchmark suite for these two parts. The AMD Instinct MI350X has no benchmark entries in the database, resulting in an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, by contrast, has a single recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, placing it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. This is not a comparison of like workloads: the MI350X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs and no graphics API support, while the Arc 64EU is an integrated graphics processor designed for rendering.

Because the head-to-head table is empty and the MI350X has no scores, any direct performance ratio between the two cannot be computed from the database. The Intel part's nearest rivals show a narrow competitive band: the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU each score exactly 733, a 0 percent delta, while the AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails by 1.4 percent with a score of 723, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads by 2.4 percent with a score of 751. This indicates the Arc 64EU sits in a cluster of low-end mobile and integrated graphics solutions, all within roughly 4 percent of each other. The MI350X, with no recorded scores, cannot be placed in that cluster or any other.

The absence of benchmark data for the MI350X is itself informative. Its 50th percentile rank is a default neutral value, not a measured placement. The Arc 64EU's 3rd percentile rank, however, is a measured outcome from its Steel Nomad run, confirming it performs near the bottom of the database's GPU population. In terms of raw throughput numbers from the specification sheet, the MI350X's FP32 rate of 72.09 TFLOPS and texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s dwarf the Arc 64EU's 1.946 TFLOPS and 60.80 GTexel/s, but these are theoretical peak figures, not benchmark results, and the database records no test where both are measured under the same conditions.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge at every architectural layer. The MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a chip labeled MI350 256CU, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per square millimeter. The Arc 64EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on an Arrow Lake-S chip, also built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, but with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, for a density of 73.3 million per square millimeter. The MI350X has roughly 10.4 times the transistor count and 9.8 times the die area, while density is close, indicating the MI350X scales width rather than packing density.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The MI350X contains 16,384 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units, with no ROPs listed, producing a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Arc 64EU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, delivering 60.80 GTexel/s and 30.40 GPixel/s. The MI350X's FP16 rate is listed as 72.09 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not gain a half-precision advantage. The Arc 64EU's FP16 rate is 3.891 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, so it doubles throughput in half precision relative to its FP32 figure of 1.946 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The Arc 64EU uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The MI350X's memory clock is fixed at 2000 MHz; the Arc's memory clock is not a discrete figure, as it relies on the host system's memory. The MI350X has no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, and no ROPs, confirming it is not a rendering device. The Arc 64EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its display outputs are motherboard dependent.

Clock behavior also reflects different design goals. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz. The Arc 64EU has a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 1900 MHz. The MI350X's higher base clock suggests sustained compute operation, while the Arc's low base clock is typical of an integrated part that idles low and boosts for bursts. The MI350X's thermal design power is 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W, whereas the Arc 64EU has a TDP of 65 W and no suggested PSU, fitting its IGP slot width and ring bus interface. The MI350X uses an OAM module slot with no power connectors, while the Arc uses a ring bus and no discrete power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc 64EU wins in every scenario that involves rendering, display output, or standard graphics APIs. It has 16 ROPs, a 30.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, plus motherboard-dependent display outputs. The MI350X has zero ROPs, zero pixel rate, no graphics API support, and no display outputs. For any workload that requires drawing to a screen, running a game, or using a graphics API, the Arc 64EU is the only functional option between the two, and its recorded Steel Nomad score of 733, while low in the overall database, confirms it can execute such workloads.

The MI350X wins in compute density and memory bandwidth scenarios. Its 16,384 shading units, 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, and 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth are designed for large-scale parallel computation, likely matrix operations or data processing, though the database does not include a benchmark to verify this. Its 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus provides a memory capacity and bandwidth combination that the Arc's system-shared memory cannot match, as the Arc's bandwidth is system dependent and not quantified. The MI350X's 1000 W TDP and OAM module form factor indicate a server or datacenter installation context, whereas the Arc's 65 W TDP and IGP slot width indicate a desktop or laptop integrated solution.

The FP16 ratio further separates use cases. The Arc 64EU's 2:1 FP16 ratio (3.891 TFLOPS) gives it a relative advantage in half-precision workloads compared to its own FP32, but the absolute figure is still 18.5 times lower than the MI350X's FP16 rate of 72.09 TFLOPS. The MI350X's 1:1 ratio means it does not specialize in half precision, but its raw FP32 throughput is 37 times higher than the Arc's FP32. For any compute task where raw floating-point throughput matters, the MI350X dominates by a wide margin, but the database lacks a benchmark to confirm real-world scaling.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every measurable specification. The MI350X is built on the CDNA 4.0 architecture with an MI350 256CU chip, while the Arc 64EU uses Xe-LPG on an Arrow Lake-S chip. Both use a 3 nm TSMC process, but the MI350X has 185,000 million transistors versus 17,800 million for the Arc, and a die size of 2380 mm² versus 243 mm². Transistor density is similar at 77.7M per mm² and 73.3M per mm², respectively.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the MI350X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, while the Arc runs at 300 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. The MI350X's memory is 288 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The Arc uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and no discrete clock. Shading units are 16,384 versus 512, TMUs are 1,024 versus 32, and ROPs are 0 versus 16. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 60.80 GTexel/s. FP32 is 72.09 TFLOPS versus 1.946 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 3.891 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and form factor differ completely: the MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W, a suggested PSU of 1400 W, an OAM Module slot width, and no power connectors. The Arc has a TDP of 65 W, no suggested PSU, an IGP slot width, and no listed power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI350X versus Ring Bus for the Arc. Display outputs are "No outputs" for the MI350X versus "Motherboard Dependent" for the Arc. API support is N/A for the MI350X across DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ: the MI350X launched on June 11, 2025, and the Arc on October 23, 2024. The MI350X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, and the Arc's predecessor is HD Graphics. The MI350X has no production status listed, while the Arc is marked Active. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X has an FP32 rate of 72.09 TFLOPS, which is 37 times higher than the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU's 1.946 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350X support any graphics APIs?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI350X, and it has no display outputs.

Q: What is the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU's recorded benchmark score?

A: The Arc 64EU has a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, with an average benchmark score of 733 and a 3rd percentile rank among all GPUs.

Q: How much memory does the AMD Instinct MI350X have, and what type?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The MI350X has a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm², while the Arc 64EU has 73.3 million per mm², a difference of 4.4 million per mm².

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The MI350X has a boost clock of 2200 MHz, which is 300 MHz higher than the Arc 64EU's boost clock of 1900 MHz.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is the only option for graphics rendering and display output, and the AMD Instinct MI350X is the only option for high-throughput compute. The Arc's recorded benchmark score of 733, while low in the overall database, confirms it functions as a rendering device with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, plus 16 ROPs and a 30.40 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI350X has no such capabilities; its zero ROPs, zero pixel rate, and N/A APIs make it unsuitable for any graphics workload.

For compute, the MI350X's specifications indicate a purpose-built accelerator: 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, 288 GB HBM3e, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc's 1.946 TFLOPS FP32 and system-shared memory cannot approach these figures. The MI350X's 1000 W TDP and OAM module form factor align with a datacenter or server context, while the Arc's 65 W TDP and IGP slot width align with consumer integrated graphics. A user with a rendering workload should choose the Arc 64EU, as it is the only part with the necessary API and ROP support. A user with a large-scale compute workload should choose the MI350X, as its memory capacity, bandwidth, and shading unit count vastly exceed the Arc's. The database records no benchmark where both are measured, so this verdict rests on the specification sheet and the Arc's single score, not on a direct comparison.