AMD Instinct MI350X vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI350X and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The MI350X is a 1000 W accelerator built for compute density, while the Arc 64EU is a 65 W integrated processor for portable devices. The recorded data shows no overlapping benchmark wins, as the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The MI350X targets server racks and high-performance computing workloads, whereas the Arc 64EU serves as an IGP for laptops and compact systems. The MI350X offers raw throughput that the Arc cannot approach, but the Arc provides display outputs and API support that the MI350X lacks entirely. The database positions both at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, though the MI350X has zero recorded benchmark scores and the Arc likewise has none. For any user requiring display output or DirectX support, the Arc 64EU is the only option. For massive parallel compute, the MI350X is the intended choice.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Its chip, labeled MI350 256CU, contains 185,000 million transistors across a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7M per mm². The Arc 64EU uses Intel's Xe-LPG architecture on a 10 nm process, fabricated by Intel. The Arc chip, codenamed Meteor Lake, has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database. The MI350X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the Arc belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation.

The MI350X packs 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. It has no pixel rate, delivering 0 MPixel/s, but its texture rate reaches 2,252.8 GTexel/s. The Arc 64EU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s. The MI350X offers 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 72.09 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The Arc delivers 1.792 TFLOPS of FP32 and 3.584 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio.

Memory configurations differ dramatically. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc uses system-shared memory, with system-shared type, bus width, and bandwidth marked as system dependent. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, with memory running at 2000 MHz or 8 Gbps effective. The Arc has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1750 MHz.

The MI350X interfaces via PCIe 5.0 x16 and mounts as an OAM module with no power connectors required and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Arc uses a Ring Bus interface, is an IGP with no slot width, and has no power connector or PSU data. The MI350X has no display outputs, while the Arc's display outputs are portable-device dependent. The MI350X supports no APIs for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The Arc supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width. The Arc has no recorded dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no head-to-head benchmark results, so wins are defined by architectural capabilities rather than measured scores. The MI350X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 72.09 TFLOPS exceeds the Arc's 1.792 TFLOPS by a factor of roughly 40. Its texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s dwarfs the Arc's 56.00 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is another clear win: 8.19 TB/s for the MI350X versus system-dependent bandwidth for the Arc. The MI350X also offers 288 GB of dedicated HBM3e memory, while the Arc shares system memory.

The Arc 64EU wins in areas relevant to client systems. It provides display outputs, albeit portable-device dependent, while the MI350X has none. The Arc supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI350X has no API support listed. The Arc's pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s, though modest, is infinitely larger than the MI350X's 0 MPixel/s. The Arc consumes 65 W, a fraction of the MI350X's 1000 W, making it suitable for battery-powered devices. The Arc is marked active in production status, while the MI350X has no recorded production status. The Arc also has a release date of December 2023, earlier than the MI350X's June 2025 release.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS. The MI350X is approximately 40 times faster in this metric.

Q: Can the MI350X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI350X has no display outputs recorded. The Intel Arc 64EU has display outputs marked as portable-device dependent.

Q: What APIs does each GPU support?

A: The MI350X lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The Arc 64EU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc 64EU uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Arc 64EU has a TDP of 65 W with no suggested PSU recorded.

Q: Which GPU is newer?

A: The Intel Arc 64EU has a release date of December 13, 2023. The AMD Instinct MI350X has a release date of June 11, 2025.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI350X and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. Both the winsA and winsB fields are zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. This absence of comparative scores reflects the fundamental mismatch in their target markets. Nevertheless, the specification data allows for direct numerical comparison across several metrics.

The largest gap appears in FP32 compute. The MI350X records 72.09 TFLOPS against the Arc's 1.792 TFLOPS. This represents a 40.2x advantage for the MI350X. In FP16 compute, the MI350X again posts 72.09 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Arc posts 3.584 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, giving the MI350X a 20.1x lead.

Texture rate shows a similar disparity. The MI350X reaches 2,252.8 GTexel/s, while the Arc manages 56.00 GTexel/s. That is a 40.2x difference, consistent with the shading unit ratio of 16,384 to 512, which is also 32x. The TMU count of 1,024 versus 32 represents a 32x gap. The ROP count tells the opposite story: the MI350X has zero ROPs, while the Arc has 16. Consequently, the MI350X's pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, and the Arc's is 28.00 GPixel/s. The Arc has an infinite advantage in pixel throughput, though this metric matters only for graphics output, which the MI350X does not provide.

Memory capacity favors the MI350X overwhelmingly. The MI350X's 288 GB of HBM3e compares to the Arc's system-shared memory, which has no fixed capacity. Bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s for the MI350X is a fixed figure, while the Arc's bandwidth is system dependent. The MI350X's 8192-bit bus width is the widest in this comparison, though the Arc's bus width is also system dependent.

Clock speeds differ in magnitude. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The Arc has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1750 MHz. The MI350X's boost clock is 450 MHz higher. Process technology also separates the two: the MI350X uses a 3 nm node at TSMC, while the Arc uses a 10 nm node at Intel.

Power consumption is inversely related to performance tier. The MI350X draws 1000 W, and the Arc draws 65 W. The Arc's power draw is 6.5% of the MI350X's. The suggested PSU for the MI350X is 1400 W, which exceeds the Arc's entire TDP by more than 20 times.

Form factor and integration differ as well. The MI350X is an OAM module with dimensions of 102 mm by 165 mm, requiring PCIe 5.0 x16. The Arc is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface and no recorded dimensions. The MI350X has no power connectors, while the Arc has no connector data. The MI350X has no display outputs, and the Arc's outputs are portable-device dependent.

Release timing places the Arc earlier. The Arc launched on December 13, 2023, and the MI350X launched on June 11, 2025. The predecessor for the MI350X is Radeon Instinct, and the predecessor for the Arc is HD Graphics-M. Neither has a recorded successor or launch MSRP.

Percentile rankings are identical at 50 for both GPUs, with average benchmark scores of zero for each. This parity in percentile, despite the massive specification differences, indicates that the database has no active benchmark data for either product. The absence of nearest rivals for both entries further confirms that no comparative measurements exist.

The practical takeaway from the recorded data is that these two GPUs never compete in the same workload. The MI350X's entire design, from its 1000 W TDP to its zero ROPs and no display outputs, targets compute acceleration. The Arc 64EU's design, with 16 ROPs, display outputs, and full API support, targets integrated graphics in mobile devices. The MI350X wins every compute-side metric by orders of magnitude. The Arc wins every client-side metric, including pixel rate, API coverage, display capability, and power efficiency. Without head-to-head benchmarks, the specification sheet itself defines the verdict: choose the MI350X for server compute, the Arc for portable graphics.