AMD Instinct MI355X vs AMD Radeon 740M Comparison

The AMD Instinct MI355X and AMD Radeon 740M occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between them. One device is a 1400 W accelerator module built for compute arrays, while the other is a 45 W integrated graphics processor for portable systems. The data indicates a clear split: the MI355X delivers extreme throughput for server workloads, while the 740M provides practical graphics capability within a shared-memory IGP design. Neither device outperforms the other in a meaningful sense because they target entirely different operational contexts.

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI355X is the choice for compute-intensive environments that require massive memory capacity and raw parallel throughput. It uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, a 3 nm process, and 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die. Its 288 GB HBM3e memory with an 8192-bit bus provides 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, and its 16,384 shading units deliver 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The recorded percentile of 50 against all GPUs reflects the absence of benchmark scores in the database for this unit, not a measured performance level. The lack of any benchmark entries means its practical standing is inferred from specifications alone.

The AMD Radeon 740M is the appropriate device for systems where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter. It uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, a 4 nm process, and 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die. Its 256 shading units deliver 2.867 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and it has 4 ray tracing cores. The database shows two benchmark results for the 740M: 10,172 in Geekbench OpenCL and 15,568 in Geekbench Vulkan, giving an average score of 12,870 and a percentile of 53. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847, 0.2% slower), AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12,831, 0.3% slower), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830, 0.3% slower), and AMD Radeon RX 580 (12,928, 0.4% faster). The 740M sits within a tight performance band around these older discrete cards.

For anyone selecting between the two, the decision rests on system context. The MI355X has no display outputs, no DirectX or Vulkan support, and requires a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The 740M is an IGP with motherboard-dependent outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and draws 45 W. The data indicates no scenario where these overlap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has 16,384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 740M has 256. This is a 64-fold difference in raw shader count.

Q: What are the benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon 740M?

A: The 740M scores 10,172 in Geekbench OpenCL and 15,568 in Geekbench Vulkan, with an average benchmark score of 12,870. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 53.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI355X support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI355X. The 740M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory does each device use?

A: The MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The 740M uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The 740M has a TDP of 45 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: How does the 740M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 740M is 0.2% faster than the AMD FirePro W5100, 0.3% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro 455, 0.3% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, and 0.4% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 580.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use fundamentally different architectures from AMD. The Instinct MI355X is built on CDNA 4.0, a compute-optimized design with no graphics API support. The Radeon 740M uses RDNA 3.0, a graphics-focused architecture with ray tracing cores and full API compatibility. The process nodes differ: the MI355X uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the 740M uses a 4 nm process, also from TSMC.

Transistor counts and die sizes diverge sharply. The MI355X packs 185,000 million transistors into a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per square millimeter. The 740M contains 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 152.6 million per square millimeter. This density difference reflects the MI355X's use of large HBM3e memory stacks integrated on-package, which consume die area without adding logic transistors.

The MI355X has no render output units, resulting in a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. Its texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s. The 740M has 8 ROPs and 16 TMUs, producing a pixel rate of 22.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 44.80 GTexel/s. The MI355X has no ray tracing cores, while the 740M includes 4. Both devices list no tensor cores.

Memory architecture differs completely. The MI355X uses dedicated HBM3e with a 2000 MHz memory clock (8 Gbps effective), while the 740M relies on system shared memory with no dedicated memory clock. The bus widths reflect this: 8192-bit for the MI355X versus System Shared for the 740M.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds show a notable inversion. The MI355X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The 740M has a lower base clock of 800 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2800 MHz. The higher boost on the smaller chip indicates a power-constrained design that can push frequency when thermal headroom allows.

The FP32 and FP16 compute figures are identical within each device, with a 1:1 ratio. The MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS in both precisions, while the 740M delivers 2.867 TFLOPS in both. This means the MI355X has roughly 27.4 times the raw FP32 throughput of the 740M.

Physical specifications differ. The MI355X is an OAM Module measuring 102 mm in length (4 inches) and 165 mm in width (6.5 inches). The 740M is an IGP with no listed dimensions. The MI355X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the 740M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI355X has no display outputs, while the 740M's outputs are motherboard dependent.

Power delivery scales accordingly. The MI355X requires 1400 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1800 W, with no power connectors listed (likely due to the OAM form factor). The 740M runs at 45 W with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. Release dates place the MI355X on 2025-06-11 and the 740M on 2024-01-30.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the MI355X and the 740M. The MI355X has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and a 50th percentile. The 740M has two recorded benchmarks and a 53rd percentile.

For the 740M, the Geekbench Vulkan score of 15,568 stands 53% above its OpenCL score of 10,172. This indicates the RDNA 3.0 architecture performs better under Vulkan's lower-level API, which reduces driver overhead. The OpenCL score places the 740M in the same performance neighborhood as its nearest rivals, with deltas of 0.2% to 0.4% against the four listed competitors.

Without MI355X benchmark data, any performance comparison must rely on specification analysis. The 78.64 TFLOPS FP32 figure for the MI355X represents the theoretical peak, but the actual achievable throughput depends on cooling, power delivery, and workload characteristics. The 740M's 2.867 TFLOPS is a similar theoretical peak for an IGP operating within a 45 W envelope.

The memory bandwidth gap is the most extreme measured difference. The MI355X's 8.19 TB/s exceeds the 740M's System Dependent bandwidth by several orders of magnitude, though the exact comparison depends on the host system's memory configuration. For memory-bound workloads, this bandwidth advantage would dominate any compute comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI355X wins in every specification category that matters for server compute. Its 288 GB memory capacity suits large model inference and training datasets. The 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth enable streaming of data at rates impossible for shared-memory designs. The 16,384 shading units and 78.64 TFLOPS FP32 throughput handle massively parallel workloads. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides high host transfer rates. The 102 mm by 165 mm OAM form factor fits standard accelerator modules.

The AMD Radeon 740M wins in integration and practical graphics. Its 45 W TDP allows deployment in laptops and compact desktops without dedicated cooling. The 4 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing in supported games. The DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support cover all major graphics APIs. The motherboard-dependent display outputs connect directly to system displays. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface suffices for integrated graphics, and the 4 nm process with high transistor density (152.6M per mm²) shows efficient design.

For application-specific wins, the 740M's Vulkan benchmark of 15,568 indicates strong performance in Vulkan-based game engines and compute workloads that use this API. Its OpenCL score of 10,172 shows more modest performance in OpenCL applications. The nearest rival data shows the 740M performing within 0.4% of the Radeon RX 580, an older discrete card, which contextualizes its capabilities against legacy hardware.

The MI355X has no benchmark-derived wins in the database, but its specification sheet defines its strengths. The absence of display outputs and graphics API support means it wins exclusively in compute roles. The 1400 W TDP and 1800 W suggested PSU define its deployment environment: data centers with dedicated power infrastructure.

The data suggests a complementary relationship rather than competition. The 740M serves end-user devices with graphics and general compute needs. The MI355X serves accelerator racks with specialized compute needs. Systems requiring both would use them in different machines, as no platform would host a 1400 W OAM module alongside an IGP. The release dates, 2025 for the MI355X and 2024 for the 740M, confirm they belong to different product cycles within AMD's portfolio. Each device wins in its intended context, and the database provides no evidence of overlap.