AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Arc Graphics 24EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores between the AMD Instinct MI355X and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU. The AMD Instinct MI355X has no benchmark entries in the database, resulting in an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, by contrast, has one recorded benchmark result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, placing it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs.

The absence of comparable measurement data for the MI355X means no delta percentage can be calculated between the two parts. The nearest rivals for the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU are informative for context. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU both post identical average scores of 733, showing a 0 percent delta against the 24EU variant. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4 percent behind the 24EU. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, putting it 2.4 percent ahead of the 24EU.

What the data confirms is a massive stratification in compute capability. The MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc Graphics 24EU delivers 768.0 GFLOPS. The difference is roughly two orders of magnitude in raw floating-point throughput. In FP16, the MI355X again outputs 78.64 TFLOPS on a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Arc Graphics 24EU reaches 1.536 TFLOPS on a 2:1 ratio. Neither device has tensor cores or ray-tracing cores listed in the database, so the comparison rests on shading, texture, and pixel throughput.

The pixel rate tells a similar story in reverse. The MI355X lists a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, which is consistent with a compute accelerator that has no display outputs. The Arc Graphics 24EU lists 12.00 GPixel/s, a figure tied to its role as an integrated graphics processor. Texture rate favors the MI355X at 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s for the Arc part, a 102.4x gap. These figures indicate that the MI355X is oriented toward dense compute workloads, while the Arc Graphics 24EU is a display-oriented processor with modest compute capacity.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies and target entirely different board segments. The AMD Instinct MI355X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture and is built on the MI350 256CU chip. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture and is built on the Arrow Lake-S chip, also fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process node. Both parts share the same process node and foundry, but the similarity ends there.

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The MI355X packs 185,000 million transistors on a die size of 2380 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm². The Arc Graphics 24EU contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, for a density of 73.3 million per mm². The MI355X die is nearly ten times larger in area and holds over ten times more transistors. The density figures are close, which reflects the shared 3 nm process, but the scale of the MI355X is on a different tier.

The MI355X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation and lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. The Arc Graphics 24EU belongs to the Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake) generation and lists HD Graphics as its predecessor. The MI355X was released on June 11, 2025, while the Arc Graphics 24EU was released on October 23, 2024. The Arc part is marked as Active in production status, while the MI355X has no production status field filled.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, with 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The Arc Graphics 24EU uses System Shared memory, with a bus width of System Shared and bandwidth listed as System Dependent. This means the integrated GPU borrows from the host system's memory pool, with no dedicated VRAM of its own.

The MI355X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and no ROPs listed. The Arc Graphics 24EU has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 6 ROPs. The MI355X lists no display outputs, while the Arc part lists Motherboard Dependent outputs. The MI355X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Arc part uses a Ring Bus. The MI355X is an OAM Module with a 1400 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1800 W, while the Arc Graphics 24EU is an IGP with a 65 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

API support also differs. The MI355X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, reflecting its compute-only orientation. The Arc Graphics 24EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32, compared to 768.0 GFLOPS for the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, a difference of approximately 102x in favor of the MI355X.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both the AMD Instinct MI355X and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU are fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process node, with transistor densities of 77.7M per mm² and 73.3M per mm² respectively.

Q: What memory configuration does each processor use?

A: The MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Graphics 24EU uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, meaning it relies on the host system's memory.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: Yes, it has one recorded result in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 733, placing it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. The MI355X has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: Which processor has display outputs?

A: The Arc Graphics 24EU has Motherboard Dependent display outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI355X has no display outputs and lists all graphics APIs as N/A.

Q: What are the TDP figures for each processor?

A: The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The Arc Graphics 24EU has a TDP of 65 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Specification Differences

The database records the following differing specifications between the AMD Instinct MI355X and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU:

• Chip: MI350 256CU versus Arrow Lake-S
• Architecture: CDNA 4.0 versus Xe-LPG
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake)
• Transistors: 185,000 million versus 17,800 million
• Die Size: 2380 mm² versus 243 mm²
• Transistor Density: 77.7M per mm² versus 73.3M per mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2400 MHz versus 2000 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus System Shared
• Memory Size: 288 GB versus System Shared
• Memory Type: HBM3e versus System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit versus System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus System Dependent
• Shading Units: 16,384 versus 192
• TMUs: 1,024 versus 12
• ROPs: 0 versus 6
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 78.64 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS
• FP16: 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 1.536 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 1400 W versus 65 W
• Slot Width: OAM Module versus IGP
• Power Connectors: None versus not listed
• Suggested PSU: 1800 W versus not listed
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus Motherboard Dependent
• DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 102 mm length, 165 mm width versus not listed
• Production Status: not listed versus Active
• Release Date: June 11, 2025 versus October 23, 2024
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus HD Graphics

Fields not listed above, such as series, codename, game clock, RT cores, tensor cores, height, successor, and launch MSRP, are either null or identical in the database and are therefore omitted.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI355X wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 78.64 TFLOPS is 102x the Arc Graphics 24EU's 768.0 GFLOPS. Its FP16 output of 78.64 TFLOPS on a 1:1 ratio also far exceeds the 1.536 TFLOPS of the Arc part. Texture rate favors the MI355X at 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. The 288 GB HBM3e frame buffer with 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth is a dedicated memory subsystem, while the Arc part depends on system memory. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface gives the MI355X a high-bandwidth host connection, and the 16,384 shading units provide a massive parallel execution footprint. The 1400 W TDP and 1800 W suggested PSU reflect a device designed for sustained, high-intensity acceleration.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU wins in areas tied to its integrated role. It has a 12.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the MI355X lists 0 MPixel/s. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI355X lists all APIs as N/A. It has 6 ROPs, while the MI355X has none. It offers Motherboard Dependent display outputs, allowing it to drive displays, while the MI355X has no outputs. Its 65 W TDP is dramatically lower than the MI355X's 1400 W, and it requires no separate power connectors or suggested PSU. The Ring Bus interface reflects its integration into the Arrow Lake-S processor package. The Arc part also has a recorded benchmark score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, while the MI355X has no benchmark entries.

The release timeline also differs: the Arc Graphics 24EU launched on October 23, 2024, while the MI355X launched on June 11, 2025. The Arc part is listed as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The database describes two processors with almost no functional overlap. The AMD Instinct MI355X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 1400 W TDP. Its 78.64 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 288 GB of HBM3e memory, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth position it for large-scale compute tasks. Its 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, despite having no benchmark scores, reflects the database's classification of a high-capability accelerator rather than a measured gaming or graphics score.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU is an integrated graphics processor within the Arrow Lake-S chip. Its 733 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals, the Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU, score identically at 733 with a 0 percent delta. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails by 1.4 percent, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads by 2.4 percent. These figures indicate modest graphics performance, suitable for basic display output and light rendering workloads.

For buyers or system integrators selecting between these two, the decision rests on workload type. The MI355X is the only option for high-throughput FP32 or FP16 compute, given its 78.64 TFLOPS in both precisions and its dedicated HBM3e memory. The Arc Graphics 24EU is the only option for systems that need display output, graphics API support, and low power draw. The 65 W TDP of the Arc part stands against the 1400 W TDP of the MI355X, a 20x difference in power requirements that dictates entirely different platform constraints.

The data does not support a direct performance comparison through head-to-head benchmarks, because no such benchmarks exist in the database. Instead, the specification records establish two distinct product categories. The MI355X is an OAM module with PCIe 5.0 x16 connectivity, while the Arc Graphics 24EU is an IGP on a Ring Bus. The MI355X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs, while the Arc part has 192 shading units and 12 TMUs. The MI355X has no ROPs; the Arc part has 6. The MI355X has no API support; the Arc part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the MI355X is built for compute density and memory bandwidth, and the Arc Graphics 24EU is built for integrated graphics duty. Each wins in the domain where the other has no presence.