AMD Instinct MI355X vs AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data for the AMD Instinct MI355X and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is asymmetrical. The MI355X has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, while the R9700 has a full set of ten tests. This makes a direct numerical comparison impossible for the MI355X. Consequently, all benchmark results and percentile rankings in this analysis belong exclusively to the R9700. The MI355X holds a 50th percentile position among all GPUs, whereas the R9700 sits at the 69th percentile, indicating that the R9700 outperforms the majority of recorded GPUs.

For the R9700, the strongest result comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 118,202. This is a massive compute-oriented figure. Its Geekbench Vulkan score is 63,550, which is roughly half the OpenCL score, highlighting a significant difference in API-specific performance. In the Passmark suite, the R9700 achieves a G3D score of 26,979 and a GPU Compute score of 15,300. The DirectX 9 test yields 363, while DirectX 10 shows 155, and DirectX 11 delivers 272. The DirectX 12 score is notably lower at 83. The G2D score is 1,236, indicating modest 2D performance relative to its 3D capabilities.

The nearest rivals in the database for the R9700 are all extremely close in average score. The AMD Radeon R9 M290X averages 23,276, a delta of 0.2% from the R9700. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M averages 23,273, also 0.2% behind. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 averages 23,250, a 0.3% difference. The NVIDIA P106-100 averages 23,249, also 0.3% behind. These deltas are negligible, meaning the R9700’s average score of 23,315 places it in a dead heat with these four rivals. The data shows that the R9700 does not decisively outrun any of its closest competitors; it edges them by fractions of a percent.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is the only one of the two with measurable performance. It has an average benchmark score of 23,315 and a percentile rank of 69, placing it above the midpoint of all GPUs. The AMD Instinct MI355X has a percentile rank of 50, but with zero benchmark scores, its actual performance cannot be verified from the database. Therefore, any choice between these two must be driven by the R9700’s confirmed results versus the MI355X’s unmeasured specifications.

The MI355X targets a different operational envelope. It uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, contains 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, and features 288 GB of HBM3e memory with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The R9700 uses a 4 nm process, has 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, and offers 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth. The MI355X is a data-center-oriented module with no display outputs and a 1400 W TDP, while the R9700 is a dual-slot card with a 300 W TDP, a 16-pin power connector, and four display outputs. The data indicates that the MI355X is built for massive parallel compute workloads, not for direct benchmarking against consumer or workstation graphics cards like the R9700.

For users who need verified benchmark results, the R9700 is the only option with recorded scores. Its launch MSRP is 1,299 USD. The MI355X has no launch MSRP in the database. The R9700’s nearest rivals are all within 0.3% of its average score, so its performance level is well-established but not dominant. The verdict from the data: the R9700 is a measured, mid-to-high-tier performer, while the MI355X remains an unmeasured, high-spec compute accelerator.

Where Each One Wins

The R9700 wins in any scenario that relies on benchmark scores. Its Passmark G3D score of 26,979 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 118,202 confirm strong general-purpose and compute performance. The R9700 also wins on software compatibility, as it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it has display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a. This makes it suitable for workstation graphics, rendering, and even gaming-adjacent tasks, though gaming performance is not explicitly recorded.

The MI355X wins on hardware scale. It has 16,384 shading units versus the R9700’s 4,096, and 1,024 texture mapping units versus 256. The MI355X’s texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s, compared to the R9700’s 747.5 GTexel/s. Its FP32 compute is 78.64 TFLOPS, and FP16 is also 78.64 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The R9700 delivers 47.84 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The MI355X has no pixel rate recorded (0 MPixel/s), while the R9700 has 373.8 GPixel/s, meaning the R9700 is the only one with confirmed rasterization throughput.

Memory capacity is another clear win for the MI355X: 288 GB versus 32 GB. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 644.6 GB/s. The MI355X uses HBM3e, while the R9700 uses GDDR6. For tasks requiring massive memory residency, such as large model inference or scientific simulation, the MI355X’s specifications are unmatched by the R9700. However, the R9700 has a significantly lower TDP of 300 W versus 1400 W, and a suggested PSU of 700 W versus 1800 W, making it far more practical for standard systems.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI355X have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The MI355X has no recorded benchmark scores, while the R9700 has ten scores across 3DMark, Geekbench, and Passmark tests.

Q: How does the R9700 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The R9700’s average score is 23,315. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M290X, has an average of 23,276, a delta of 0.2%. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M is 0.2% behind, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 and NVIDIA P106-100 are each 0.3% behind.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The R9700 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS for FP32, while the R9700 delivers 47.84 TFLOPS. Both have a 1:1 FP16 ratio, with the MI355X at 78.64 TFLOPS and the R9700 at 47.84 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The R9700 has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested PSU of 700 W.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The R9700 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a. The MI355X has no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The MI355X is built on CDNA 4.0 architecture, while the R9700 uses RDNA 4.0. The MI355X’s chip is the MI350 256CU, and the R9700 uses the Navi 48 chip. The MI355X is fabricated on a 3 nm process from TSMC, and the R9700 uses a 4 nm process, also from TSMC. Transistor counts differ substantially: the MI355X has 185,000 million transistors, and the R9700 has 53,900 million. Die size is 2380 mm² for the MI355X and 357 mm² for the R9700, giving transistor densities of 77.7M per mm² and 151.0M per mm², respectively.

The MI355X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and no ROPs (0). The R9700 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The R9700 also has 64 ray tracing cores, while the MI355X has no recorded RT cores. Neither card lists tensor cores. The MI355X’s pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, while the R9700 achieves 373.8 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 2,457.6 GTexel/s for the MI355X and 747.5 GTexel/s for the R9700. The MI355X has no API support recorded, whereas the R9700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The MI355X is an OAM module with no power connectors and no display outputs. The R9700 is a dual-slot card with a 16-pin power connector and four display outputs. The MI355X’s base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 2400 MHz and memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The R9700’s base clock is 1660 MHz, boost is 2920 MHz, game clock is 2350 MHz, and memory runs at 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective). These architectural differences point to the MI355X being a compute accelerator without graphics output, while the R9700 is a full graphics and compute card.

Specification Differences

The MI355X and R9700 differ across every major specification field. The MI355X has a 3 nm process; the R9700 has a 4 nm process. Transistors are 185,000 million versus 53,900 million. Die size is 2380 mm² versus 357 mm². Transistor density is 77.7M per mm² versus 151.0M per mm². Base clocks are 1000 MHz versus 1660 MHz. Boost clocks are 2400 MHz versus 2920 MHz. The R9700 has a game clock of 2350 MHz; the MI355X has none. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective).

Memory size is 288 GB versus 32 GB. Memory type is HBM3e versus GDDR6. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 644.6 GB/s. Shading units are 16,384 versus 4,096. TMUs are 1,024 versus 256. ROPs are 0 versus 128. The R9700 has 64 RT cores; the MI355X has none. Pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s versus 373.8 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 747.5 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are both 78.64 TFLOPS for the MI355X and 47.84 TFLOPS for the R9700.

TDP is 1400 W versus 300 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus Dual-slot. Power connectors are None versus 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU is 1800 W versus 700 W. Display outputs are None versus 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a. DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support are all N/A for the MI355X, while the R9700 supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), 4.6, and 1.4, respectively. Dimensions are 102 mm length and 165 mm width for the MI355X, versus 267 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width for the R9700. The MI355X has no production status recorded; the R9700 is marked Active. Release dates are 2025-06-11 for the MI355X and 2025-07-22 for the R9700.