AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data separates these two accelerators clearly by role. The AMD Instinct MI355X is built as a high-capacity, high-throughput compute node for large-scale AI and HPC workloads, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is a lower-power, dual-slot accelerator aimed at dense server deployments with moderate compute demands.

The MI355X wins on every raw compute and memory metric in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 78.64 TFLOPS is more than triple the Intel part's 22.22 TFLOPS. Memory capacity is 288 GB versus 48 GB, and bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 1.23 TB/s. There are no recorded benchmark wins for either part, as the head-to-head benchmark array is empty, so the use-case split must be derived from the specification deltas.

The Intel Max 1100 wins in power efficiency and physical integration. Its 300 W TDP is a fraction of the MI355X's 1400 W TDP, and its dual-slot form factor with a single 12-pin power connector fits standard server chassis. The MI355X uses an OAM module form factor with no power connectors, which requires a specialized carrier board. The data indicates the Intel card is the choice for systems where power delivery and physical compatibility are constrained, while the AMD card is for installations where maximum memory and compute density is the priority.

The MI355X also wins on architectural recency. Its release date is 2025-06-11, while the Intel part shipped on 2023-01-09. The AMD part uses a 3 nm process from TSMC versus Intel's 10 nm process. The MI355X carries 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, while the Intel part has 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical, 77.7M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm², which suggests the density gains are similar but the AMD part simply scales the design much larger.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators diverge at the instruction set and design philosophy level. The MI355X uses CDNA 4.0 architecture, which is AMD's dedicated compute platform, and carries the MI350 256CU chip. The Intel Max 1100 uses Generation 12.5 architecture and the Ponte Vecchio chip, which is Intel's Xe-HPC design.

The MI355X implements 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The Intel part has 7,168 shading units, 448 TMUs, and also zero ROPs, but it includes 56 ray tracing cores. Neither part has a DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API path for the AMD side, while the Intel card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. This indicates the MI355X is purely a compute accelerator with no graphics pipeline, while the Intel part retains some graphics capability despite its data center positioning.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The MI355X uses HBM3e with 288 GB capacity across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s. The Intel part uses HBM2e with 48 GB across the same 8192-bit bus, delivering 1.23 TB/s. The bus width is identical, so the bandwidth difference comes entirely from the memory generation and clock speed. The MI355X memory runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the Intel memory runs at 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective). The effective data rate per pin is more than six times higher on the AMD part.

Clock behavior also differs. Both parts have a 1000 MHz base clock, but the MI355X boosts to 2400 MHz versus the Intel part's 1550 MHz. The resulting texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s on the AMD part versus 694.4 GTexel/s on the Intel part. FP16 and FP32 are both 1:1 on each card, meaning there is no separate tensor path; the MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS in both precisions, and the Intel part delivers 22.22 TFLOPS in both.

The process node difference is significant. The MI355X is fabricated on a 3 nm node by TSMC, while the Intel part is on Intel's 10 nm process. The transistor count difference, 185,000 million versus 100,000 million, is larger than the die size difference, 2380 mm² versus 1280 mm². That produces nearly equal transistor densities, which indicates the architectural scaling is the differentiator, not the fabrication efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array in the database is empty, and neither item has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals. Both items have a percentileVsAllGpus score of 50 and an avgBenchmarkScore of 0. This means there is no measured performance data to compare directly. The analysis must therefore rely on the specification deltas, which are unambiguous.

The largest single-metric win for the MI355X is FP32 compute. At 78.64 TFLOPS, it delivers 3.54 times the Intel part's 22.22 TFLOPS. That ratio holds for FP16 as well, since both are 1:1. The texture rate gap is similar, 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s, which is 3.54 times as well, consistent with the shading unit and TMU ratios.

Memory bandwidth is the second major differentiator. The MI355X delivers 8.19 TB/s versus 1.23 TB/s, a 6.66 times advantage. Memory capacity is 288 GB versus 48 GB, a 6 times advantage. The combination of higher capacity and higher bandwidth means the MI355X can hold substantially larger models and feed them faster. The Intel part's 48 GB capacity is sufficient for smaller inference workloads but not for large-scale training.

The boost clock difference is 2400 MHz versus 1550 MHz, a 1.55 times advantage for the AMD part. The base clocks are identical at 1000 MHz. The memory clock difference is 2000 MHz versus 600 MHz, a 3.33 times advantage. The MI355X is faster in every clock domain.

The only metrics where the Intel part wins are power and physical dimensions. The Intel TDP is 300 W versus 1400 W, which is a 4.67 times efficiency advantage per watt. The Intel card is a dual-slot design with a 267 mm length, while the MI355X is an OAM module at 102 mm length and 165 mm width. The Intel part has a suggested PSU of 700 W versus 1800 W for the AMD part. The Intel card is also the only one with an active production status, while the AMD part's production status is not recorded.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ in nearly every specification field. The MI355X uses a 3 nm TSMC process, the Intel part uses 10 nm Intel. Transistors are 185,000 million versus 100,000 million. Die size is 2380 mm² versus 1280 mm². Transistor density is 77.7M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm². The MI355X has 16,384 shading units versus 7,168, and 1,024 TMUs versus 448. The Intel part has 56 ray tracing cores, the AMD part has none recorded. ROPs are zero on both.

Memory capacity is 288 GB versus 48 GB, both HBM but different generations, HBM3e versus HBM2e. Bus width is identical at 8192 bit. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 1.23 TB/s. Memory clock is 2000 MHz versus 600 MHz. FP32 is 78.64 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS. FP16 is the same ratio. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s on both. TDP is 1400 W versus 300 W. The AMD part uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors, the Intel part is dual-slot with one 12-pin connector. Suggested PSU is 1800 W versus 700 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 on both. Display outputs are none on both.

The MI355X has no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The MI355X is 102 mm long and 165 mm wide, the Intel part is 267 mm long with no width recorded. The MI355X has no production status recorded, the Intel part is active. Release dates are 2025-06-11 for the AMD part and 2023-01-09 for the Intel part. The AMD part's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, the Intel part's successor is H3C Graphics. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS in FP32, which is 3.54 times the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100's 22.22 TFLOPS. Both parts run FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, so the same advantage applies in FP16.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI355X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Max 1100 uses 48 GB of HBM2e on the same 8192-bit bus but only achieves 1.23 TB/s. The bandwidth advantage for the AMD part is 6.66 times.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W and requires a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The Intel Max 1100 has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested PSU of 700 W. The Intel part consumes 4.67 times less power.

Q: Do these cards support graphics APIs?

A: The MI355X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. The Intel Max 1100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither card has display outputs.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The MI355X is an OAM Module measuring 102 mm by 165 mm with no power connectors. The Intel Max 1100 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length with one 12-pin power connector.

Q: Which part has ray tracing capability?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 includes 56 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI355X has no ray tracing cores recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The AMD Instinct MI355X is the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads that demand maximum memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 288 GB HBM3e pool and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth exceed the Intel part by factors of 6 and 6.66 respectively. Its 78.64 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than triple the Intel Max 1100. This is the part for large-scale AI training, inference with very large models, and HPC simulations that need to keep massive datasets resident on the accelerator.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is the appropriate choice when power and physical integration constraints dominate. Its 300 W TDP allows deployment in standard dual-slot server configurations with a 700 W PSU, whereas the MI355X requires an OAM carrier and an 1800 W PSU. The Intel part also offers a graphics API path with DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, which the AMD part lacks entirely. Its 48 GB HBM2e and 22.22 TFLOPS are sufficient for smaller inference workloads and edge deployments.

The production status also differs. The Intel part is marked active, while the AMD part has no recorded production status. The release dates place the Intel part at 2023-01-09 and the AMD part at 2025-06-11, so the AMD part is the newer design by roughly two years. The transistor density is nearly identical, 77.7M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm², which indicates both designs are at similar integration efficiency, but the AMD part uses a much larger die to deliver the performance advantage.

The choice comes down to scale versus practicality. The MI355X wins decisively on every compute and memory metric. The Max 1100 wins on power, physical compatibility, and API support. For data centers with the infrastructure to support OAM modules and 1400 W parts, the MI355X is the clear performance leader. For standard PCIe server slots with limited power budgets, the Max 1100 is the functional option. The data does not favor one universally; it defines two distinct deployment profiles.