AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI355X and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU. The database lists zero benchmark scores for the AMD Instinct MI355X, meaning its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it holds a percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, by contrast, has one recorded benchmark result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, which places it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs.

Without overlapping test results, the only quantitative comparison comes from the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU's nearest rivals. That data shows the Arc 64EU scores identically to the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU, both at 733, representing a 0% delta. It sits 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6470M, which scores 723, and 2.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M, which scores 751. These deltas are small, indicating that the Arc 64EU's performance class is tightly clustered among older and lower-end parts.

The AMD Instinct MI355X has no nearest rivals listed in the database, so no comparative deltas can be calculated. Its 50th percentile ranking with an average score of 0 likely reflects the absence of benchmark submissions rather than a literal performance of zero. The data confirms that the MI355X is not represented in the same benchmark suite as the Arc 64EU, making direct wins or losses unmeasurable from the recorded measurements.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI355X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on the MI350 256CU chip, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Arrow Lake-S chip, also fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Both parts share the same process node and foundry, but their architectural goals diverge sharply.

The MI355X integrates 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7M per mm². The Arc 64EU integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a density of 73.3M per mm². The MI355X's die is nearly ten times larger, reflecting its focus on compute throughput rather than integrated graphics efficiency.

The MI355X is built around 16,384 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units, with no ROPs recorded. The Arc 64EU contains 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Neither part lists dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores in the database, though the MI355X's CDNA 4.0 architecture is designed for data center workloads, while the Xe-LPG architecture targets integrated graphics in mainstream processors.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI355X uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc 64EU uses System Shared memory, with its type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as System Dependent. The MI355X's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the Arc 64EU's memory clock is system-dependent.

The MI355X's API support is recorded as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, consistent with a compute accelerator that has no display outputs. The Arc 64EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its display outputs are motherboard dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI355X wins decisively in raw compute throughput based on its recorded specifications. Its FP32 performance is 78.64 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is identical at 78.64 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU delivers 1.946 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.891 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The MI355X's FP32 output is roughly 40 times higher, and its FP16 output is about 20 times higher, though these ratios are derived from the recorded figures rather than from any direct benchmark comparison.

Texture rate favors the MI355X overwhelmingly. It records a texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s, while the Arc 64EU achieves 60.80 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is a different story: the MI355X records 0 MPixel/s, while the Arc 64EU manages 30.40 GPixel/s. This reflects the MI355X's lack of ROPs and its role as a compute accelerator that does not rasterize graphics, while the Arc 64EU is a functional integrated GPU with display output capability.

Memory bandwidth is another categorical win for the MI355X, with 8.19 TB/s versus the Arc 64EU's system-dependent shared memory. The MI355X also carries 288 GB of dedicated HBM3e, whereas the Arc 64EU relies on the host system's memory pool.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every measurable specification. The MI355X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The Arc 64EU runs at a 300 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. The MI355X's TDP is 1400 W with a suggested PSU of 1800 W, while the Arc 64EU's TDP is 65 W with no suggested PSU listed.

The MI355X is an OAM Module with no power connectors and no display outputs. The Arc 64EU is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs and no recorded power connector requirement. The MI355X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Arc 64EU uses a Ring Bus interface.

The MI355X's dimensions are 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, while the Arc 64EU has no recorded dimensions. The MI355X's release date is 2025-06-11, and it succeeds the Radeon Instinct. The Arc 64EU's release date is 2024-10-23, and it succeeds HD Graphics. The MI355X has no production status recorded, while the Arc 64EU is marked as Active.

The MI355X's shading unit count is 16,384 versus 512 for the Arc 64EU. TMUs are 1,024 versus 32. ROPs are 0 versus 16. The MI355X records a die size of 2380 mm² against 243 mm² for the Arc 64EU. Transistor counts are 185,000 million versus 17,800 million.

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference between the two parts?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X records 78.64 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU records 1.946 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: How much memory does each part use?

A: The MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc 64EU uses System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W with a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The Arc 64EU has a TDP of 65 W with no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which part supports DirectX?

A: The MI355X lists DirectX as N/A. The Arc 64EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the release date of each part?

A: The MI355X was released on 2025-06-11, and the Arc 64EU was released on 2024-10-23.

Q: How does the Arc 64EU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc 64EU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733 matches the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU exactly, sits 1.4% above the AMD Radeon HD 6470M's 723, and falls 2.4% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M's 751.

The Verdict

The data presents two parts with no overlapping benchmark results, so the verdict rests on recorded specifications and the one available benchmark for the Arc 64EU. The AMD Instinct MI355X is a data center compute accelerator with 78.64 TFLOPS FP32, 288 GB of HBM3e, and an 8192-bit memory bus. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is an integrated GPU with 1.946 TFLOPS FP32, system-shared memory, and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 733 that places it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs.

Users requiring massive compute throughput, high memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth should look to the MI355X. Its 1400 W TDP and OAM form factor indicate a server-class installation, and its lack of display outputs confirms it is not intended for graphics rendering. The Arc 64EU, with its 65 W TDP, motherboard-dependent outputs, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, serves as an integrated graphics solution for everyday display and light rendering tasks.

The MI355X's 50th percentile ranking with an average score of 0 is ambiguous, but its specification sheet shows a part engineered for a different workload class entirely. The Arc 64EU's benchmark data places it alongside the Arc 32EU and 24EU in a tight performance band, with negligible deltas of 0% to the 32EU and 24EU, 1.4% ahead of the HD 6470M, and 2.4% behind the GT 415M. The recorded data supports no other conclusion: these parts do not compete in the same segment, and each serves a distinct purpose defined by its architecture, memory, and power envelope.