AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two products compared in this database entry?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X, an Instinct (MIx) generation accelerator built on CDNA 4.0 architecture, and the Intel Arc A380M, an Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation mobile GPU built on Xe-HPG architecture.

Q: When were these two products released?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has a release date of 2025-06-11, while the Intel Arc A380M has a release date of 2023-01-23.

Q: What are the process nodes and foundries for each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, whereas the Intel Arc A380M uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two products?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192 bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Arc A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96 bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W with a suggested PSU of 1800 W and uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors. The Intel Arc A380M has a TDP of 35 W, uses an MXM Module slot width, and does not list a suggested PSU.

Q: What display outputs does each product provide?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X provides no display outputs, while the Intel Arc A380M's display outputs are portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI355X and Intel Arc A380M represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The MI355X is built on the CDNA 4.0 architecture, which prioritizes compute throughput for data center workloads. Its chip, the MI350 256CU, contains 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The transistor density reaches 77.7M per mm². This is a massive accelerator designed for dense compute tasks.

The Intel Arc A380M uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². This is a mobile GPU aimed at portable devices, with a production status listed as active.

In terms of compute resources, the MI355X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs, while the A380M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI355X lists 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, which indicates it is not designed for rasterization output. The A380M has 8 ray tracing cores, while the MI355X does not list ray tracing cores.

The memory subsystems differ drastically. The MI355X uses HBM3e with 288 GB capacity, an 8192 bit bus, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The A380M uses GDDR6 with 6 GB capacity, a 96 bit bus, and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the MI355X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and boost clock of 2400 MHz, while the A380M has a base clock of 1550 MHz and boost clock of 2000 MHz. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the MI355X and 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for the A380M.

The API support also diverges. The MI355X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI355X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, whereas the A380M uses MXM-A (3.1). The MI355X has no display outputs, while the A380M's outputs depend on the portable device.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database has no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for these two products. Both the AMD Instinct MI355X and Intel Arc A380M have empty benchmark arrays, zero wins each, and an average benchmark score of zero. Their percentile rankings against all GPUs are identical at 50, which reflects the absence of recorded performance data rather than any actual performance parity.

Without benchmark scores, the comparison must rely on the architectural and specification data. The MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS FP32 and 78.64 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the A380M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The FP32 difference is substantial: the MI355X offers roughly 19 times the FP32 throughput of the A380M. The texture rate for the MI355X is 2,457.6 GTexel/s compared to 128.0 GTexel/s for the A380M, again a large gap.

Memory bandwidth shows a similar pattern. The MI355X provides 8.19 TB/s, while the A380M provides 186.0 GB/s. The MI355X's bandwidth is more than 40 times higher. However, the A380M does have a nonzero pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, while the MI355X has 0 MPixel/s, indicating the A380M retains rasterization capability.

The lack of benchmark data means these raw specifications serve as the only quantitative comparison points. The data shows that the MI355X is built for extreme compute density, while the A380M is a low-power mobile part. The TDP difference of 1400 W versus 35 W reinforces this split.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every measurable specification. The manufacturing process differs: 3 nm for the MI355X versus 6 nm for the A380M. Transistor counts are 185,000 million versus 7,200 million, and die sizes are 2380 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density is 77.7M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost: 1000 MHz and 2400 MHz for the MI355X, 1550 MHz and 2000 MHz for the A380M. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 288 GB HBM3e versus 6 GB GDDR6. Bus widths are 8192 bit versus 96 bit. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 16,384 versus 1,024. TMUs are 1,024 versus 64. ROPs are 0 versus 32. Ray tracing cores are absent on the MI355X versus 8 on the A380M. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 78.64 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16 is 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP is 1400 W versus 35 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus MXM Module. Power connectors are listed as none for the MI355X and not listed for the A380M. Suggested PSU is 1800 W for the MI355X and not listed for the A380M. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.1). Display outputs are none versus portable device dependent. The API sets are N/A versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Dimensions also differ. The MI355X has a length of 102 mm (4 inches) and width of 165 mm (6.5 inches). The A380M has no recorded dimensions. The MI355X has no production status listed, while the A380M is listed as active. The MI355X lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct; the A380M has no predecessor listed. Neither product has a successor listed, and neither has a launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI355X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 78.64 TFLOPS dwarfs the A380M's 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is also higher at 78.64 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s further confirms the MI355X's advantage in compute-heavy tasks. Memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s makes the MI355X suited for workloads that move large datasets, such as AI training or scientific simulation.

The Intel Arc A380M wins in areas related to graphical output and power efficiency. It has a nonzero pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, while the MI355X has 0 MPixel/s. The A380M includes 8 ray tracing cores, which the MI355X lacks entirely. The A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI355X lists N/A for all three APIs. The A380M also has display outputs dependent on the portable device, whereas the MI355X has no outputs at all.

Power consumption is another clear differentiator. The A380M's TDP of 35 W is drastically lower than the MI355X's 1400 W. This makes the A380M suitable for mobile or low-power environments, while the MI355X requires a suggested PSU of 1800 W and an OAM Module form factor. The A380M also has an active production status, while the MI355X does not list one.

The MI355X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, which is a standard server connection, while the A380M uses MXM-A (3.1), a mobile module interface. The MI355X's 288 GB memory capacity and 8192 bit bus are clearly aimed at large-scale data center tasks, while the A380M's 6 GB GDDR6 and 96 bit bus target more modest graphical workloads.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that these two products serve entirely different purposes. The AMD Instinct MI355X is a data center accelerator with 78.64 TFLOPS FP32, 288 GB of HBM3e memory, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. Its 1400 W TDP and OAM Module form factor place it in rack-mounted compute environments. The lack of display outputs and API support for graphics reinforces its compute-only role. The Intel Arc A380M is a mobile GPU with 4.096 TFLOPS FP32, 6 GB GDDR6, and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. Its 35 W TDP, MXM Module form factor, and portable device dependent outputs target mobile systems.

The MI355X wins on every compute metric: shading units (16,384 versus 1,024), TMUs (1,024 versus 64), texture rate (2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s), FP32 (78.64 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS), and FP16 (78.64 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS). It also has a much larger memory subsystem. The A380M wins on graphical features: 32 ROPs, 8 ray tracing cores, a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support.

The percentile rankings for both are 50, and both have an average benchmark score of zero, so the database contains no performance scores to differentiate them further. The specification data alone shows that a buyer selecting between these two would choose based on workload: the MI355X for high-throughput compute, the A380M for graphics rendering on portable devices. The MI355X was released on 2025-06-11, while the A380M was released on 2023-01-23. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded. The MI355X lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct; the A380M has no predecessor. The production status is active for the A380M and not listed for the MI355X.