AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no shared benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI355X and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. Neither product has any entries in the benchmark score field, and the head-to-head comparison list is empty. As a result, there are no measured performance deltas, no percentile shifts, and no direct frame-rate or compute-score comparisons to report. The absence of benchmark data is itself a significant finding: these two accelerators occupy entirely separate performance tiers, and the database does not yet contain a common workload that exercises both.

The AMD Instinct MI355X sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile also sits at the 50th percentile with a zero average score. While both share the same percentile rank, that rank reflects the lack of recorded scores rather than comparable performance. The MI355X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs and no graphics API support, meaning it cannot run the same rendering workloads as the Intel part. Conversely, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is an integrated graphics processor designed for portable devices, with full DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The database shows zero overlapping benchmarks because the two products do not target the same software ecosystem.

For raw arithmetic throughput, the FP32 figures provide the only quantitative comparison available. The MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at roughly 44 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part, though such a ratio should be interpreted with caution because the architectures and power envelopes are fundamentally different. The MI355X also sustains FP16 at 78.64 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel part reaches 3.584 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning the MI355X again leads by a wide margin.

Texture and pixel throughput tell a similar story. The MI355X achieves a texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s, compared to 56.00 GTexel/s for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile, a factor of nearly 44. The pixel rate comparison is more complicated: the MI355X reports 0 MPixel/s because it has no raster output units and no display pipeline, while the Intel part reports 28.00 GPixel/s with 16 ROPs. The Intel iGPU wins the pixel rate category by default, but that result has no practical meaning for the MI355X, which is not designed to render pixels at all.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI355X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The chip is designated MI350 256CU, with 185,000 million transistors on a die size of 2380 mm², yielding a transistor density of 77.7M per mm². That die is enormous, larger than any consumer GPU in the database, and it houses 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and zero raster output units. The lack of ROPs confirms the MI355X is a pure compute accelerator with no graphics rasterization capability. It has no display outputs, and its API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The chip is Meteor Lake, and the part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation. It integrates 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. Unlike the MI355X, it has a full graphics pipeline with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning the laptop or handheld system determines the physical connectors. The Intel part is an integrated GPU with a Ring Bus interface, sharing system memory rather than using dedicated VRAM.

The memory subsystems are radically different. The MI355X comes with 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. Memory clocks run at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses System Shared memory, with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. That means the Intel iGPU borrows from the host system's RAM, and its memory performance is entirely contingent on the laptop or handheld's memory configuration. No fixed bandwidth figure exists in the database for the Intel part.

The MI355X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1750 MHz. The AMD accelerator runs at a higher clock speed, but the real differentiator is the sheer scale of the compute units: 16,384 shading units versus 512, a 32-fold difference. The MI355X also includes 1,024 TMUs versus 32 for Intel, a 32-fold difference in texture units. The MI355X has no ROPs, while the Intel part has 16.

Power and physical design separate the two products completely. The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W, requires an 1800 W suggested PSU, and comes in an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors listed. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a TDP of 65 W, uses an IGP slot width, and requires no separate power connectors. The MI355X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, while the Intel part has no listed dimensions because it is soldered onto the motherboard as an integrated processor. The MI355X uses PCIe 5.0 x16 for host connectivity, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus.

Release timing also differs. The MI355X was released on June 11, 2025, with a predecessor listed as Radeon Instinct. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile was released on December 13, 2023, with a predecessor of HD Graphics-M. The Intel part is marked as Active in production status, while the MI355X has a null production status in the database.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these two products are not competitors in any meaningful sense. The AMD Instinct MI355X is a data-center compute accelerator with 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, 288 GB of HBM3e memory, and 8.19 TB/s of memory bandwidth, designed for workloads that never touch a display. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is an integrated GPU for portable devices, with 1.792 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, shared system memory, and full graphics API support for rendering and display output.

For anyone selecting a part strictly from the database records, the choice depends entirely on the workload. If the task is high-performance compute, such as large-scale matrix operations or scientific simulation, the MI355X delivers 44 times the FP32 throughput and 44 times the texture rate of the Intel part. Its 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs provide the parallel execution resources needed for such workloads. The 288 GB of HBM3e memory with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is a decisive advantage for memory-bound compute tasks.

If the task is graphics rendering on a mobile device, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is the only viable option between the two, because the MI355X has no display outputs and no graphics API support. The Intel part's 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 512 shading units are modest but functional for integrated graphics. Its 65 W TDP fits within a portable device's thermal budget, whereas the MI355X requires 1400 W and an OAM module slot, which no laptop or handheld can accommodate.

The database shows no benchmark overlap, so there is no measured performance comparison to cite. The verdict is therefore structural: the MI355X wins every compute metric recorded, and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile wins the only rasterization metric recorded. Neither product can substitute for the other in its respective domain.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ on every specification field that has a value. The MI355X uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The MI355X has 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, while the Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size. The MI355X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, versus 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the Intel part.

Clock speeds differ: the MI355X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 1750 MHz boost. Memory differs completely: the MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. The MI355X has no pixel rate, while the Intel part has 28.00 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 78.64 TFLOPS versus 1.792 TFLOPS. FP16 is 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 1400 W versus 65 W.

Slot width is OAM Module versus IGP. Power connectors are None versus null. Suggested PSU is 1800 W versus null. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs are No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent. API support is N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan versus 12 (12_1), 4.6, and 1.4. Dimensions are 102 mm length and 165 mm width versus no listed dimensions. Release dates are June 11, 2025 versus December 13, 2023. Predecessors are Radeon Instinct versus HD Graphics-M.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has 16,384 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has 512.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS, making the MI355X roughly 44 times faster in this metric.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile support DirectX?

A: Yes, it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The MI355X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support.

Q: How much memory does each part have?

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

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and requires an 1800 W suggested PSU. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a TDP of 65 W.

Q: Can the MI355X output video to a display?

A: No, the MI355X has no display outputs, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has display outputs that depend on the portable device it is integrated into.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI355X wins in every compute-oriented category recorded in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 78.64 TFLOPS is 44 times the Intel part's 1.792 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) is 22 times the Intel part's 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1). Its texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s is 44 times the Intel part's 56.00 GTexel/s. Its memory capacity of 288 GB is far larger than the Intel part's System Shared memory, and its bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is not even quantified for the Intel part because it is System Dependent. The MI355X also holds advantages in shading units (16,384 versus 512), TMUs (1,024 versus 32), process node (3 nm versus 10 nm), and transistor count (185,000 million versus no listed count).

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile wins in the rasterization category. It has a pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s, while the MI355X reports 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs. The Intel part has 16 ROPs, whereas the MI355X has 0. The Intel part also wins in API support, with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI355X has N/A for all three. The Intel part has display outputs (portable device dependent), while the MI355X has no outputs. The Intel part has a lower TDP of 65 W versus 1400 W, making it suitable for portable devices. It also has a Ring Bus interface that integrates directly with the host processor, whereas the MI355X requires a PCIe 5.0 x16 slot. The Intel part is listed as Active in production status, while the MI355X has a null status.

The use-case split is clear from the data. For high-throughput compute acceleration in a data-center or server context, the MI355X is the only choice between the two, given its massive compute resources and dedicated HBM3e memory. For graphics rendering, display output, and software-based graphics acceleration on a laptop or handheld device, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is the only choice, because the MI355X cannot render or display anything. The two products do not overlap in any measured workload, and the database confirms they serve entirely different market segments.