AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Arc Pro B70 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI355X and Intel Arc Pro B70 occupy entirely different positions in the hardware landscape, and the recorded data makes this clear. The Instinct MI355X is built around the MI350 256CU chip and CDNA 4.0 architecture, delivering 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 78.64 TFLOPS of FP16 compute with a 1:1 ratio. The Arc Pro B70, using the BMG-G31 chip and Xe2-HPG architecture, delivers 22.94 TFLOPS FP32 and 45.88 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. In raw compute throughput, the Instinct MI355X leads by a substantial margin: approximately 3.4 times the FP32 performance and roughly 1.7 times the FP16 performance.

Memory capacity and bandwidth further separate the two. The Instinct MI355X carries 288 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B70 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, producing 608.0 GB/s. The bandwidth differential is over 13 times in favor of the AMD part. This positions the Instinct MI355X for workloads where massive datasets must remain resident in fast memory, while the Arc Pro B70 targets conventional graphics and compute tasks with a more modest memory footprint.

The Arc Pro B70 counters with features the Instinct MI355X simply does not have. It includes 32 ray tracing cores, 128 ROPs, a pixel rate of 358.4 GPixel/s, display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1), and full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI355X reports zero ROPs, zero pixel rate, no display outputs, and N/A for all graphics APIs. The AMD part is a compute accelerator with no graphics pipeline; the Intel part is a professional graphics card capable of rendering and display output. Benchmark wins therefore split along functional lines: the Instinct MI355X wins every compute and memory throughput category, while the Arc Pro B70 wins every graphics-specific category.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Instinct MI355X uses CDNA 4.0, a compute-optimized architecture from AMD, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 2380 mm² with 185,000 million transistors, producing a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm². This is a massive accelerator built for data center-scale workloads. The chip runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with memory clocked at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The power envelope is correspondingly large: 1400 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 1800 W. It uses an OAM module slot width and has no power connectors because it relies on the module interface for power delivery.

The Arc Pro B70 uses Xe2-HPG, Intel's high-performance graphics architecture, on a 5 nm TSMC process. The die is 368 mm², with transistor count listed as unknown. Base clock is 2280 MHz, boost is 2800 MHz, and memory runs at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The TDP is 230 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W, using a single 8-pin power connector and a dual-slot form factor. The physical package is a standard graphics card: 267 mm length, 110 mm height, 39 mm width. The Instinct MI355X measures 102 mm length and 165 mm width, reflecting its OAM module design.

The shading unit counts differ significantly: 16384 shading units on the Instinct MI355X versus 4096 on the Arc Pro B70. Texture units are 1024 versus 256. The AMD chip has no ROPs, no ray tracing cores, and no tensor cores listed, while the Intel chip has 128 ROPs and 32 ray tracing cores. The Arc Pro B70 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the Instinct MI355X reports N/A for all of these. The bus interface for both is PCIe 5.0 x16, so connectivity is identical.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database is empty, so the comparison relies on the specification-derived metrics available. The most decisive gap appears in memory bandwidth. The Instinct MI355X delivers 8.19 TB/s against the Arc Pro B70's 608.0 GB/s. Expressed as a ratio, the AMD part provides approximately 13.5 times the bandwidth. For workloads that stream large tensors or datasets through memory, this difference dominates all other factors.

In FP32 compute, the Instinct MI355X achieves 78.64 TFLOPS versus 22.94 TFLOPS for the Arc Pro B70, a lead of roughly 3.4 times. In FP16, the AMD part delivers 78.64 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part delivers 45.88 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part leads by about 1.7 times, but the ratio difference matters: the Instinct MI355X treats FP16 as a first-class citizen with the same throughput as FP32, whereas the Arc Pro B70 doubles its FP16 rate relative to FP32, suggesting a more graphics-oriented design where reduced precision is used for shading and similar tasks.

Texture rate also favors the AMD part: 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 716.8 GTexel/s, a lead of roughly 3.4 times. Pixel rate tells the opposite story. The Arc Pro B70 achieves 358.4 GPixel/s, while the Instinct MI355X reports 0 MPixel/s. This is not a contest; it is a reflection that the AMD chip has no rasterization hardware at all. The Arc Pro B70's 32 ray tracing cores further cement its position as the only one of the two capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Clock speeds show a different balance. The Arc Pro B70 runs at a base of 2280 MHz and boosts to 2800 MHz. The Instinct MI355X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. The Intel chip runs at higher frequencies, but the AMD chip compensates with far more execution units. The memory clock also differs: 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) for the Arc Pro B70 versus 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the Instinct MI355X. Again, the AMD part wins on total bandwidth because of the 8192-bit bus width versus 256-bit, not because of faster memory clocks.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 3 nm for the AMD part and 5 nm for the Intel part, both fabricated by TSMC. Die size is 2380 mm² versus 368 mm², a difference of roughly 6.5 times. Transistor count is 185,000 million for AMD, while Intel's is listed as unknown. Transistor density is 77.7 million per mm² for AMD, with no corresponding figure for Intel.

Memory configuration diverges completely: 288 GB HBM3e over 8192 bit versus 32 GB GDDR6 over 256 bit. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 608.0 GB/s. Shading units are 16384 versus 4096. Texture units are 1024 versus 256. ROPs are 0 versus 128. Ray tracing cores are absent on the AMD part and present at 32 on the Intel part. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 358.4 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 716.8 GTexel/s. FP32 is 78.64 TFLOPS versus 22.94 TFLOPS. FP16 is 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 45.88 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power requirements differ by a factor of about six: 1400 W TDP versus 230 W. The suggested PSU is 1800 W versus 550 W. Form factors are incompatible: OAM module versus dual-slot PCIe card. The AMD part has no power connectors, relying on the OAM interface; the Intel part uses a single 8-pin connector. Display outputs exist only on the Intel card. API support exists only on the Intel card. Release dates differ: the Instinct MI355X launched on June 11, 2025, while the Arc Pro B70 launched on March 25, 2026. The launch MSRP for the Arc Pro B70 is 949 USD; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Instinct MI355X.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth from HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The Intel Arc Pro B70 has 608.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The AMD part has approximately 13.5 times the bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B70 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The Arc Pro B70 includes 32 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI355X lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: Which card can output to displays?

A: Only the Intel Arc Pro B70 has display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The AMD Instinct MI355X has no display outputs.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The Instinct MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Arc Pro B70 delivers 22.94 TFLOPS. This gives the AMD part roughly 3.4 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The Instinct MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W with a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The Arc Pro B70 has a TDP of 230 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: What graphics APIs does each card support?

A: The Arc Pro B70 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI355X reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

The Verdict

The data points to two products with no meaningful overlap. The AMD Instinct MI355X is a compute accelerator with 78.64 TFLOPS FP32, 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 288 GB of HBM3e. It has no graphics pipeline, no display outputs, and no graphics API support. It requires a 1400 W power envelope and an OAM module slot. Its intended use is large-scale compute where memory capacity and bandwidth are the limiting factors.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 is a professional graphics card with 22.94 TFLOPS FP32, 608.0 GB/s bandwidth, 32 GB of GDDR6, 32 ray tracing cores, and full display output capability. It fits in a dual-slot PCIe form factor, draws 230 W, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its launch MSRP is 949 USD.

The choice between them depends entirely on workload. For compute tasks that require massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, and maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, the Instinct MI355X is the only option with the required specifications. For graphics rendering, ray tracing, display output, or any workload that needs a rasterization pipeline, the Arc Pro B70 is the only option that has the necessary hardware. Benchmark records show no direct comparison data, so the decision rests on the specification differences recorded in the database. The Instinct MI355X wins every compute and memory metric by a wide margin; the Arc Pro B70 wins every graphics and display metric by default, because the AMD part has no such capabilities.