AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for this pairing. Both products return zero benchmark scores, zero wins for either side, and no nearest rival data. The percentile ranking for both is identical at 50, which places them at the median of all tracked GPUs, but this is a positional value, not a performance measurement.

Without benchmark scores, the comparison must rely entirely on the specification sheets and architectural parameters recorded in the database. What the data does show is a pairing of two products with fundamentally different purposes, form factors, and performance envelopes. The AMD Instinct MI355X is a data center accelerator with an 8192-bit memory bus and 288 GB of HBM3e, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is an integrated graphics processor for laptops with system shared memory. The benchmark database records no overlapping test results, so no direct numerical comparison of application performance is possible from the recorded data.

The absence of head-to-head results is itself informative. The database would typically record wins and losses for products that compete in the same segment. Here, the wins counter is zero for both sides, which indicates that no benchmark suite in the database has run both products through the same workload set. The MI355X targets server acceleration workloads, and the Arc 112EU targets mobile consumer graphics. These are distinct market positions, which explains the lack of shared benchmark data.

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the AMD Instinct MI355X and the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X records 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile records 3.942 TFLOPS. The MI355X delivers 74.698 TFLOPS more in single-precision floating point, which is roughly 20 times the FP32 throughput of the Arc part.

Q: How do the memory systems differ between these two products?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory on a 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses system shared memory, with a bus width and type both listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." The MI355X has a fixed, dedicated memory pool; the Arc part depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration.

Q: What are the clock speed ranges for each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with memory clocked at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, with memory clock listed as "System Shared."

Q: Which product has more shading units, and what is the ratio?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has 16,384 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has 896 shading units. The MI355X has 15,488 more shading units, representing an 18.3x advantage in this parameter.

Q: What are the texture and pixel throughput figures for each?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X records a texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile records a texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s. The MI355X has 2,334.4 GTexel/s more texture throughput, while the Arc part has 52.80 GPixel/s more pixel throughput.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W with a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has a TDP of 65 W and no suggested PSU listed. The MI355X consumes 1335 W more power according to the recorded TDP values.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two products with no shared benchmark results, so the verdict must be drawn from the specification sheets alone. For compute workloads that require massive FP32 throughput, the AMD Instinct MI355X is the clear choice: 78.64 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS, 16,384 shading units versus 896, and 288 GB of dedicated HBM3e versus system shared memory. The MI355X also delivers 8.19 TB/s of memory bandwidth, a figure that the Arc part cannot match because its bandwidth is system dependent.

For mobile graphics tasks, the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is the only viable option between the two, because the MI355X has no display outputs and uses an OAM Module slot width. The Arc part is an IGP with portable device dependent display outputs, which means it can drive screens in laptops. The MI355X cannot output video at all, which makes it unsuitable for any client-side graphics role.

The pixel rate comparison reinforces this split: the Arc part records 52.80 GPixel/s of pixel throughput, while the MI355X records 0 MPixel/s. The MI355X has no raster output units (0 ROPs), so it cannot perform the pixel processing that the Arc part handles with its 24 ROPs. Conversely, the MI355X's texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s vastly exceeds the Arc part's 123.2 GTexel/s, which indicates a compute-oriented design where texture work is not the bottleneck.

The power envelope also separates these products. The MI355X requires 1400 W of TDP and a suggested 1800 W PSU, which places it in a data center rack environment. The Arc part runs at 65 W and needs no external power connectors, which fits a mobile chassis. A system builder choosing between these would select based on the workload: the MI355X for server-side acceleration, the Arc part for integrated mobile graphics. The data does not support a single winner across all usage models.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD Instinct MI355X uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The MI355X has 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, while the Arc part has no transistor count or die size recorded.

The MI355X lists a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, compared to 300 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost for the Arc part. The memory configuration is entirely different: 288 GB of HBM3e on a 8192-bit bus versus system shared memory with a system dependent bus width and bandwidth.

Shading units are 16,384 versus 896. Texture mapping units are 1024 versus 56. Raster output units are 0 versus 24. The FP32 throughput is 78.64 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS. The FP16 throughput is 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) for the MI355X versus 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) for the Arc part.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. TDP is 1400 W versus 65 W. The MI355X has a suggested PSU of 1800 W; the Arc part has none. The slot width is OAM Module versus IGP. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus.

Display outputs are "No outputs" for the MI355X and "Portable Device Dependent" for the Arc part. The API support differs: the MI355X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the Arc part lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI355X has no power connectors listed, while the Arc part has no power connector entry at all.

The release dates differ: 2025-06-11 for the MI355X and 2023-12-13 for the Arc part. The MI355X lists a predecessor of Radeon Instinct, while the Arc part lists HD Graphics-M. The MI355X has no production status recorded; the Arc part is listed as "Active." The MI355X has dimensions of 102 mm length and 165 mm width; the Arc part has no dimensions recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI355X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on the MI350 256CU chip, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Meteor Lake chip. The MI355X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation; the Arc part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation.

The CDNA 4.0 architecture is designed for compute acceleration with no display pipeline. This is confirmed by the API fields reading N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and by the pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s with 0 ROPs. The Xe-LPG architecture in the Arc part is a graphics-oriented design with full API support, 24 ROPs, and a pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s.

The FP16 ratio differs between the architectures. The MI355X lists FP16 at 78.64 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, which means both precisions run at the same throughput. The Arc part lists FP16 at 7.885 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which means FP16 runs at twice the throughput of FP32 (3.942 TFLOPS). This indicates the MI355X treats FP16 and FP32 as equal-priority compute formats, while the Arc part accelerates FP16 with a dedicated path.

The memory architecture diverges completely. The MI355X uses HBM3e with a 8192-bit bus, which is a wide, high-bandwidth configuration suited to large data sets. The Arc part uses system shared memory, which means it has no dedicated memory controller for graphics and instead borrows bandwidth from the host CPU's memory subsystem. The recorded bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s for the MI355X is a fixed value; the Arc part's bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent."

The process node difference is significant: 3 nm for the MI355X versus 10 nm for the Arc part. The transistor density for the MI355X is 77.7 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Arc part has no density recorded. The MI355X uses a 2380 mm² die, which is a very large package for a compute accelerator.

The bus interface also differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI355X versus Ring Bus for the Arc part. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface allows the MI355X to communicate with a host CPU at high bandwidth over a standard expansion slot. The Ring Bus interface for the Arc part is an internal interconnect that ties the integrated GPU into the Meteor Lake processor's fabric.

The power delivery architecture is different as well. The MI355X has no power connectors, which means it receives power through the OAM Module slot. The Arc part is an IGP, so it draws power from the host processor's power delivery system. The MI355X's 1400 W TDP and 1800 W suggested PSU indicate a power-hungry design, while the 65 W TDP for the Arc part fits within a mobile processor's budget.

The display output capability is the most functional difference. The MI355X has no display outputs at all, which makes it a pure compute device. The Arc part has portable device dependent outputs, which means it can drive the internal display of a laptop. This architectural distinction determines the use cases: the MI355X is for headless server acceleration, and the Arc part is for client-side graphics.