AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI355X versus the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile. Both entries have an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of zero, and zero recorded wins in the comparison. The database indicates both parts sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, which reflects the absence of measured performance data rather than a meaningful performance tie.

Without benchmark scores, the comparison must rely on the raw specification sheet. The AMD Instinct MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile delivers 4.608 TFLOPS. That is a 17.1x difference in raw single-precision throughput. In FP16, the MI355X again lists 78.64 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Arc part reaches 9.216 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio. The gap narrows somewhat in FP16 but remains massive.

The texture rate tells a similar story. The MI355X achieves 2,457.6 GTexel/s, while the Arc mobile part manages 144.0 GTexel/s. The pixel rate is an outlier: the MI355X lists 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the Arc part lists 72.00 GPixel/s with 32 ROPs. That is a category where the Intel part is ahead, but it is a consequence of the AMD accelerator being designed without a display or raster output pipeline.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive split. The MI355X has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth across a 8192-bit HBM3e interface with 288 GB of capacity. The Arc part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so there is no fixed figure to compare. The database records the Intel memory bus width as system shared as well.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI355X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The chip is labeled MI350 256CU and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. It packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 77.7 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses Xe-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process, and is part of the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation. The Intel chip has no listed transistor count or die size.

The core configuration differs by an order of magnitude. The MI355X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and zero ROPs. The Arc 128EU has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Neither part lists dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores in the database. The MI355X has no display outputs, while the Arc part's display outputs are portable device dependent. The AMD part lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, while the Arc part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The clock behavior is also distinct. The MI355X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The Arc part has a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2250 MHz. The memory clock on the AMD side is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the Intel side uses system shared memory with no dedicated clock. Power envelopes are far apart: the MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W with a suggested PSU of 1800 W, while the Arc part has a TDP of 28 W. The AMD part is an OAM module with no power connectors, measuring 102 mm by 165 mm. The Intel part is an IGP with no dimensions listed.

The Verdict

The data indicates these two products occupy entirely different roles. The AMD Instinct MI355X is a compute accelerator built for massive parallel workloads, with 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32, 8.19 TB/s of memory bandwidth, and 288 GB of HBM3e. It has no display outputs and no consumer API support, which means it is not designed to render frames or drive a monitor. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile is an integrated GPU for laptops, with 4.608 TFLOPS of FP32, 72.00 GPixel/s of pixel throughput, and full DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. It is meant to output video and handle graphics workloads on a portable device.

For compute density, the MI355X is the clear choice. Its FP32 throughput is more than 17 times higher than the Arc part, and its memory bandwidth is in the terabytes per second range versus system dependent shared memory. For graphics output and API compatibility, the Arc part is the only one of the two that can function as a display adapter. The MI355X cannot output video at all. The power draw difference is equally stark: 1400 W versus 28 W. Anyone selecting between these two is not choosing between similar products; they are choosing between a data center accelerator and a mobile integrated GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile delivers 4.608 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI355X support DirectX?

A: No. The database lists DirectX as N/A for the MI355X, along with OpenGL and Vulkan also N/A. The Intel Arc part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on a 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The Arc part has a TDP of 28 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI355X output video to a display?

A: No. The database lists display outputs as "No outputs" for the MI355X. The Arc part lists display outputs as portable device dependent.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MI355X has 16,384 shading units, while the Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has 1,024 shading units.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The MI355X is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Arc part is built on Intel's 10 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI355X wins in every compute-heavy category that the database records. Its FP32 throughput of 78.64 TFLOPS dwarfs the 4.608 TFLOPS of the Arc part. Its texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s is more than 17 times the 144.0 GTexel/s of the Intel chip. Memory capacity and bandwidth are not comparable: 288 GB and 8.19 TB/s versus system shared. The MI355X also has a much larger core configuration, with 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs versus 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs. The transistor count of 185,000 million on a 2380 mm² die shows a design built for maximum parallel throughput.

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile wins in the categories that matter for a functioning graphics output device. It has 32 ROPs and a pixel rate of 72.00 GPixel/s, while the MI355X has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Arc part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it full graphics API coverage. The MI355X lists N/A for all three APIs. The Arc part has a boost clock of 2250 MHz, close to the MI355X's 2400 MHz, but at a tiny fraction of the power draw. The Arc part is also an active production product, while the MI355X has no production status listed in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every specification field in the database. The AMD Instinct MI355X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses Xe-LPG architecture on Intel's 10 nm process. The MI355X has 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die; the Arc part has no transistor count or die size listed.

Clock speeds: the MI355X has a 1000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the Arc part has a 300 MHz base and 2250 MHz boost. Memory: the MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e with a 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth; the Arc part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The MI355X memory clock is 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective); the Arc part has no standalone memory clock.

Core counts: the MI355X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Arc part has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Performance rates: the MI355X lists 78.64 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the Arc part lists 4.608 TFLOPS FP32 and 9.216 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 144.0 GTexel/s. The pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 72.00 GPixel/s.

Power and physical format: the MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and a suggested PSU of 1800 W, uses an OAM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and measures 102 mm by 165 mm. The Arc part has a TDP of 28 W, uses an IGP slot width, has no power connector data, and no dimensions listed. The bus interface differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 on the MI355X versus Ring Bus on the Arc part. Display outputs are "No outputs" on the MI355X versus "Portable Device Dependent" on the Arc part. The MI355X has no API support listed, while the Arc part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are also far apart: the MI355X released on 2025-06-11, and the Arc part released on 2023-12-13.