AMD Instinct MI350X vs Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual Comparison

AMD Instinct MI350X and Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual occupy opposite ends of the accelerator spectrum, and the recorded data reflects that divide clearly. The MI350X is a massive OAM module built for scale-up compute, while the B60 Dual is a conventional dual-slot PCIe card with display outputs. With no shared benchmark scores in the database, the comparison rests on architectural specifications, memory subsystems, and compute throughput figures.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two parts, so the comparison must rely on theoretical peak throughput and memory bandwidth figures. In FP32 compute, the MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS, which is roughly 5.9 times the 12.29 TFLOPS of the B60 Dual. That gap is enormous and indicates the MI350X is designed for workloads where raw single-precision math dominates, such as large-scale AI training and scientific simulation.

In FP16 compute, the difference narrows but remains decisive. The MI350X sustains 72.09 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain any extra throughput from reduced precision. The B60 Dual reaches 24.58 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, effectively doubling its FP32 rate. Even with that advantage, the MI350X still leads by nearly 3 times in FP16 throughput. This matters for machine learning inference and training, where FP16 is common, but the MI350X's absolute lead is not diminished.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The MI350X provides 8.19 TB/s from its 8192-bit HBM3e interface, while the B60 Dual offers 456.0 GB/s from a 192-bit GDDR6 bus. That is an 18-fold difference in bandwidth, which directly impacts memory-bound workloads like large matrix multiplications and data-parallel kernels. The MI350X also holds a 12-fold capacity advantage with 288 GB versus 24 GB, allowing far larger models and datasets to reside on-device.

Texture and pixel rates reflect the different design goals. The MI350X posts a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s but a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming it has no rasterization output stage. The B60 Dual produces 384.0 GTexel/s and 192.0 GPixel/s, making it a functional graphics processor. Neither part has a benchmark score in the database, so percentile rankings are both 50, but that is a placeholder rather than a measured result.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, with 185,000 million transistors packed into a 2380 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 77.7M per mm². The B60 Dual uses Xe2-HPG, Intel's Battlemage architecture, on a 5 nm TSMC process with 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, for a density of 72.1M per mm². The MI350X has nearly 10 times the transistor count and a die that is roughly 9 times larger, which explains its extreme compute and memory capabilities.

The MI350X implements 16,384 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs. It has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The B60 Dual has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 20 ray tracing cores. The presence of ROPs and ray tracing hardware on the B60 Dual confirms its graphics-oriented design, while the MI350X is purely compute-focused with no display outputs at all.

Memory technology differs fundamentally. The MI350X uses HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, whereas the B60 Dual uses GDDR6 across a 192-bit bus. HBM3e offers far higher bandwidth per pin and much larger capacity per package, which is why the MI350X reaches 288 GB. The B60 Dual's 24 GB is substantial for a workstation card but small relative to the MI350X's capacity.

Clock speeds also diverge. The MI350X runs at a base of 1000 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz. The B60 Dual has a higher base of 2000 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz. Despite lower clocks, the MI350X achieves far higher throughput due to its massive shader count and memory bandwidth. The B60 Dual's higher clocks help it remain competitive in latency-sensitive tasks but cannot compensate for the core count difference.

Power and cooling requirements are radically different. The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP and requires a 1400 W suggested power supply, with no power connectors because it uses an OAM module interface. The B60 Dual has a 400 W TDP, uses a single 16-pin connector, and suggests an 800 W power supply. The MI350X is not a drop-in card for a standard PC; it needs a server platform designed for OAM modules. The B60 Dual fits a standard PCIe 5.0 x8 slot.

The Verdict

The data indicates the MI350X is for compute environments where maximum memory capacity and bandwidth are non-negotiable. Its 288 GB HBM3e pool and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth are suited for large language model inference and training datasets that cannot fit in 24 GB. The 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 throughput provides the arithmetic headroom needed for dense matrix operations. The 1000 W TDP and OAM form factor mean it belongs in a server chassis, not a desktop.

The B60 Dual is the more flexible option for workstation and professional graphics tasks. Its 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 20 ray tracing cores enable real-time rendering and visualization workflows. The 24 GB GDDR6 memory is adequate for large 3D scenes and video editing timelines. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs allow direct display connection, something the MI350X completely lacks. The 400 W TDP and dual-slot design permit installation in conventional workstations with a single 16-pin power connector.

Neither card is suitable for the other's primary use case. The MI350X cannot output video and has no graphics API support, as its DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan entries are all N/A. The B60 Dual supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a complete graphics solution. Users who need compute acceleration plus display output must choose the B60 Dual. Users who need maximum memory bandwidth and capacity for compute-only workloads must choose the MI350X.

Specification Differences

The MI350X uses a 3 nm process; the B60 Dual uses 5 nm. Transistor counts are 185,000 million versus 19,600 million, and die sizes are 2380 mm² versus 272 mm². Transistor density is 77.7M per mm² versus 72.1M per mm².

Base clocks are 1000 MHz versus 2000 MHz, and boost clocks are 2200 MHz versus 2400 MHz. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective versus 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity is 288 GB HBM3e versus 24 GB GDDR6. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 456.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 16,384 versus 2,560. TMUs are 1,024 versus 160. ROPs are 0 versus 80. Ray tracing cores are absent versus 20.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 72.09 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16 is 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP is 1000 W versus 400 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus Dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU is 1400 W versus 800 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x8.

Display outputs are none versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. API support is N/A for the MI350X, while the B60 Dual supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Dimensions are 102 mm length and 165 mm width for the MI350X, versus 300 mm length, 110 mm height, and 40 mm width for the B60 Dual. The MI350X has no production status listed; the B60 Dual is Active.

Release dates are 2025-06-11 for the MI350X and 2025-09-04 for the B60 Dual. The MI350X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the B60 Dual has no listed predecessor. The B60 Dual has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS, which is 5.9 times the 12.29 TFLOPS of the B60 Dual.

Q: Does the MI350X support display output?

A: No, the MI350X has no display outputs and no graphics API support. The B60 Dual has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The MI350X provides 8.19 TB/s from 288 GB of HBM3e, while the B60 Dual provides 456.0 GB/s from 24 GB of GDDR6.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP and suggests a 1400 W power supply. The B60 Dual has a 400 W TDP and suggests an 800 W power supply.

Q: Which card has ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the B60 Dual has 20 ray tracing cores. The MI350X has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What is the memory clock difference?

A: The MI350X runs memory at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the B60 Dual runs at 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350X wins decisively in compute throughput. Its 72.09 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, combined with 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth and 288 GB capacity, makes it the clear choice for large-scale AI model training, scientific computing, and data center inference workloads. The 8192-bit bus and HBM3e memory are designed for sustained bandwidth saturation, which is critical for matrix multiplication and transformer layers. The 1000 W TDP and OAM form factor are acceptable in server environments where density and power delivery are planned.

The B60 Dual wins in graphics and workstation flexibility. It offers 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 20 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing for rendering and visualization. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support multi-monitor setups directly from the card. The 24 GB GDDR6 memory is sufficient for complex 3D scenes, video editing, and GPU-accelerated design tools. The 400 W TDP and dual-slot design fit standard workstations, and the PCIe 5.0 x8 interface provides ample bandwidth for its needs.

The B60 Dual also wins on API compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it usable across a wide range of professional and consumer software. The MI350X has no API support listed, reinforcing its role as a compute-only accelerator. For anyone needing a card that can both render and compute, the B60 Dual is the only option of the two.

The MI350X wins on memory capacity by a 12-fold margin, and on bandwidth by an 18-fold margin. These figures are not incremental improvements but order-of-magnitude differences. Workloads that exceed 24 GB of data cannot run on the B60 Dual without significant partitioning or offloading. The MI350X's 288 GB pool accommodates entire large language models and large scientific datasets in a single allocation.

The B60 Dual wins on clock speeds, with a 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost versus the MI350X's 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Higher clocks benefit latency-sensitive tasks and graphics workloads where per-thread performance matters more than raw throughput. The MI350X compensates with 6.4 times the shading units, which is why its aggregate throughput remains far higher despite lower clocks.

The MI350X wins on transistor count and die size, reflecting its purpose-built nature for extreme compute density. The B60 Dual wins on practicality, with a lower power draw, standard slot width, and display outputs. Each card is optimized for a different environment, and the data does not suggest either is a general-purpose replacement for the other.