AMD Instinct MI355X vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI355X and the AMD Radeon RX 7400. The MI355X has no benchmark entries in the database, while the RX 7400 has a full suite of eight recorded tests. This absence of overlapping measurements means the two parts cannot be ranked against each other with any numerical score. The RX 7400's average benchmark score is 2467, placing it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The MI355X sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero, which reflects missing data rather than a performance statement.

The RX 7400 shows its strongest results in specific workloads. Its PassMark G3D score of 11897 represents the highest single measurement among its recorded tests. The PassMark G2D score of 1209 indicates 2D rendering capability, while the DirectX 9 test returns 176, DirectX 10 returns 59, DirectX 11 returns 97, and DirectX 12 returns 44. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test produces a score of 1103, and the GPU compute test records 5152. These numbers paint a picture of a modest performer, one that sits close to several competitors. The nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 8040S, averages 2440, just 1.1% behind the RX 7400. The NVIDIA GeForce 710M trails by 1.4% with 2433, the Intel HD Graphics 610 trails by 1.8% with 2425, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M trails by 1.9% with 2422.

Since the MI355X has no benchmark entries, the database cannot confirm any wins for either product. The wins counter shows zero for both. Any comparison between these two accelerators must rely on architectural specifications rather than measured performance.

Architecture Differences

The two AMD products come from entirely different design philosophies. The MI355X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built specifically for compute acceleration, while the RX 7400 uses RDNA 3.0, designed for graphics rendering. The process node tells the first major story: the MI355X is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 7400 uses a 6 nm process at the same foundry. That node difference enables a massive transistor count gap. The MI355X packs 185,000 million transistors on a die size of 2380 mm², yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm². The RX 7400 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2 million per mm². The MI355X die is nearly twelve times larger in area and holds over thirteen times more transistors.

The MI355X chip is designated MI350 256CU, suggesting 256 compute units. Its shading unit count reaches 16384, with 1024 texture mapping units and zero raster operation units. The RX 7400 uses the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, with 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The RX 7400 also includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the MI355X specification. The MI355X reports no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The MI355X uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, producing 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s. That is a bandwidth difference of roughly 28 to 1. Clock speeds show different priorities. The MI355X runs a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The RX 7400 has a higher base clock of 1452 MHz, a boost of 2300 MHz, a game clock of 2200 MHz, and memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The MI355X trades lower base clocks for massive memory throughput.

Compute throughput measures the separation clearly. The MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same 78.64 TFLOPS of FP16, a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7400 delivers 16.49 TFLOPS of FP32 and 32.97 TFLOPS of FP16, a 2:1 ratio. The MI355X leads by 4.77 times in FP32 and 2.39 times in FP16. Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern. The MI355X reaches 2,457.6 GTexel/s with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, while the RX 7400 reaches 257.6 GTexel/s with 147.2 GPixel/s.

Power and interface requirements reflect their different roles. The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and a suggested PSU of 1800 W, using an OAM module slot with no power connectors. The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W, a suggested PSU of 200 W, uses a dual-slot design with one 6-pin connector, and provides display outputs including one HDMI 2.1a and three DisplayPort 2.1 connections. The MI355X has no display outputs. Bus interfaces also differ: the MI355X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. API support is defined only for the RX 7400, which lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI355X reports N/A for all three.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports a clear split by workload type. The MI355X wins decisively in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and FP arithmetic. Its 78.64 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures dwarf the RX 7400's 16.49 and 32.97 TFLOPS respectively. The 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth enables data movement that the RX 7400 cannot approach with its 288.0 GB/s. The 288 GB memory capacity versus 8 GB means the MI355X can hold enormous datasets in memory, while the RX 7400 must constantly swap data. The MI355X also benefits from a newer 3 nm process, a larger die, and a higher transistor count, all of which point to sustained compute workloads like training or inference.

The RX 7400 wins in areas where graphics output matters. It includes 64 raster operation units, 28 ray tracing cores, and a 147.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, all absent or zeroed on the MI355X. The RX 7400 has display outputs, which the MI355X lacks entirely. Its 2:1 FP16 ratio suggests a graphics-oriented design where half-precision is used for rendering tasks. The RX 7400 also wins on power efficiency in absolute terms, with a 43 W TDP versus 1400 W, though the performance per watt comparison cannot be computed without benchmark scores for the MI355X. The RX 7400's higher base clock of 1452 MHz versus 1000 MHz indicates better responsiveness in clock-sensitive tasks.

The RX 7400 has measurable benchmark data, and that data places it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs, close to integrated graphics solutions. Its nearest rivals are all low-end parts, within 1.9% of its average score. This confirms the RX 7400 as an entry-level graphics card, not a compute monster. The MI355X, with no benchmarks, occupies the 50th percentile by default, which says nothing about its actual standing.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the choice depends entirely on the intended use case. The MI355X is an accelerator for compute-heavy environments where memory capacity, bandwidth, and FP32 throughput matter most. Its 288 GB HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and 78.64 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it in a class that the RX 7400 cannot touch. The RX 7400 is a graphics card for display output and rendering, with 64 ROPs, 28 ray tracing cores, and display connections.

The MI355X targets workloads with no graphics output requirement. Its zero pixel rate, zero ROPs, and no display outputs confirm this. The RX 7400 targets desktop or workstation graphics, with a full API stack including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI355X reports no API support in the database.

Power requirements separate them further. The MI355X demands a 1400 W TDP and an 1800 W suggested PSU, while the RX 7400 runs on 43 W and a 200 W suggested PSU. A system built around the MI355X needs enterprise infrastructure, an OAM module slot, and PCIe 5.0 x16. A system using the RX 7400 can be a standard desktop with PCIe 4.0 x8 and a single 6-pin connector.

The release dates show the MI355X launched on June 11, 2025, and the RX 7400 on August 7, 2025, two months later. Both come from AMD, but they serve different market segments within the same company. The MI355X belongs to the Instinct product line, while the RX 7400 belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series. The data does not support a recommendation for one over the other; it supports a recommendation based on workload type.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 4.77 times the RX 7400's 16.49 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory, while the RX 7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: The RX 7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores. The MI355X specification does not list any ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: Can the MI355X output to a display?

A: No, the MI355X has no display outputs. The RX 7400 has one HDMI 2.1a and three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The MI355X boosts to 2400 MHz, while the RX 7400 boosts to 2300 MHz. The RX 7400 has a higher base clock at 1452 MHz versus 1000 MHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI355X | AMD Radeon RX 7400 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Chip | MI350 256CU | Navi 33 |

| Codename | None | Hotpink Bonefish |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Navi III (RX 7000) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 185,000 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 2380 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 77.7M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1452 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 2300 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 288 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 16384 | 1792 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 1024 | 112 |

| Raster Operation Units | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 147.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,457.6 GTexel/s | 257.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 78.64 TFLOPS | 16.49 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) | 32.97 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1400 W | 43 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1800 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX Support | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2025-06-11 | 2025-08-07 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Navi II |

| Successor | None | Navi IV |