AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Arc B770 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI355X or the Intel Arc B770. The average benchmark score for both products is 0, and neither GPU registers a single win in head-to-head comparisons. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical at 50 for both, indicating that without measured performance data, the database places them at the median of all recorded graphics cards.

Because the head-to-head benchmark array is empty, there are no exact performance deltas to report. The AMD Instinct MI355X shows a theoretical FP32 throughput of 78.64 TFLOPS against the Intel Arc B770's 19.66 TFLOPS, a 4x difference on paper. The FP16 figures diverge more sharply: the MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Arc B770 delivers 39.32 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. These are raw compute specifications, not benchmark results, so they cannot be used to establish a performance ranking. The texture rate on the MI355X is 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s on the Arc B770, again a specification difference rather than a measured outcome.

The pixel rate tells a different story. The MI355X lists 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the Arc B770 outputs 307.2 GPixel/s from its 128 ROPs. The database shows zero recorded wins for either side, so any conclusion about actual workload performance must remain qualitative. The data indicates that the MI355X is designed for compute density, while the Arc B770 carries conventional rasterization hardware. Without benchmark scores, the head-to-head comparison is limited to architectural intent rather than measured results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has 16,384 shading units, while the Intel Arc B770 has 4,096. That is a 4x difference in raw shader count.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The MI355X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are the clock speeds different between the two?

A: Both have a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The base clock differs: the MI355X runs at 1000 MHz, while the Arc B770 runs at 2100 MHz. Memory clock is 2000 MHz on both, but the effective data rate is 8 Gbps on the MI355X versus 16 Gbps on the Arc B770.

Q: Do both cards support PCIe 5.0?

A: No. The MI355X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc B770 uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and suggests an 1800 W PSU. The Arc B770 has a TDP of 225 W and suggests a 550 W PSU.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: Only the Arc B770 has display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI355X has no outputs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI355X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on the MI350 256CU chip, and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The Intel Arc B770 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, built on the BMG-G31 chip, and belongs to the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation. The process nodes differ: the MI355X is fabricated on a 3 nm node at TSMC, while the Arc B770 is on a 5 nm node, also at TSMC.

Transistor counts are not directly comparable. The MI355X lists 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a density of 77.7M per mm². The Arc B770 lists an unknown transistor count on a 368 mm² die. The MI355X uses a 3 nm process, which allows a much larger die with far more compute resources. The Arc B770's smaller die and 5 nm node reflect a consumer-oriented design.

The MI355X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and zero ROPs. It has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The Arc B770 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, plus 32 ray tracing cores. The MI355X's lack of ROPs and display outputs indicates it is not intended for rasterized graphics output. The Arc B770, with its 32 RT cores and conventional ROP pipeline, is built for real-time rendering.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI355X uses HBM3e with 288 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B770 uses GDDR6 with 16 GB capacity, a 256-bit bus, and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI355X's memory bandwidth is 16x higher, consistent with its compute-focused mission. The Arc B770's memory is typical for a rasterization card.

API support separates them entirely. The MI355X lists DirectX as N/A, OpenGL as N/A, and Vulkan as N/A. The Arc B770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI355X is not a graphics API device; it is a compute accelerator. The Arc B770 is a full graphics card with modern API coverage.

The power delivery design also differs. The MI355X is an OAM module with no power connectors and a 1400 W TDP. The Arc B770 is a dual-slot card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors and a 225 W TDP. The MI355X requires a system-level power solution, while the Arc B770 uses standard PCIe power cables.

The physical dimensions are recorded only for the MI355X: 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width. The Arc B770 has no recorded dimensions. The MI355X's form factor as an OAM module confirms it is meant for server racks, not desktop cases.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The process node is 3 nm for the MI355X versus 5 nm for the Arc B770, both from TSMC. Transistor count is 185,000 million for the MI355X, while the Arc B770's is unknown. Die size is 2380 mm² for the MI355X versus 368 mm² for the Arc B770.

Base clock is 1000 MHz on the MI355X and 2100 MHz on the Arc B770. Boost clock is identical at 2400 MHz. Memory clock is 2000 MHz on both, but effective data rates differ: 8 Gbps on the MI355X versus 16 Gbps on the Arc B770. Memory size is 288 GB versus 16 GB. Memory type is HBM3e versus GDDR6. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 16,384 versus 4,096. TMUs are 1,024 versus 256. ROPs are 0 versus 128. Ray tracing cores are absent on the MI355X, while the Arc B770 has 32. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 307.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 78.64 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS. FP16 is 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP is 1400 W versus 225 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 1800 W versus 550 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are none versus 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

API support: the MI355X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support; the Arc B770 has DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Dimensions are recorded for the MI355X (length 102 mm, width 165 mm) but not for the Arc B770. Release dates differ: the MI355X is dated 2025-06-11, while the Arc B770 is dated 2025-12-31. Predecessors differ: the MI355X follows Radeon Instinct, while the Arc B770 follows Alchemist.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two products into entirely different categories. The AMD Instinct MI355X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no ROPs, no graphics API support, and an OAM module form factor. Its 288 GB of HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput position it for data-center compute workloads. The 1400 W TDP and 1800 W suggested PSU confirm that it requires server infrastructure, not a desktop power supply.

The Intel Arc B770 is a consumer graphics card with dual-slot cooling, standard power connectors, display outputs, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. Its 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU fit a conventional desktop build. The 16 GB GDDR6 memory and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth are typical for a rasterization-focused GPU.

The database shows no benchmark scores for either product, so a performance verdict cannot be derived from measurements. The specification sheet indicates that the MI355X is for users who need massive memory bandwidth and compute density without any graphics output. The Arc B770 is for users who need a standard graphics card with modern API coverage, ray tracing support, and display connectivity.

Selection depends on the workload context. The MI355X suits compute tasks that require high FP32 or FP16 throughput and enormous memory capacity. The Arc B770 suits rendering tasks that require rasterization, ray tracing, and a graphical output path. The data does not support a recommendation for one over the other in any shared use case, because their feature sets do not overlap. The MI355X has no path to a monitor, while the Arc B770 lacks the memory capacity and bandwidth for large-scale compute jobs. The choice is determined by the system's purpose, not by comparing equal features.