AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem Comparison

The Verdict

The database places both the AMD Instinct MI355X and the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with identical average benchmark scores of zero. Neither part has recorded wins in head-to-head benchmark comparisons, so the verdict rests entirely on architectural and specification data.

The AMD Instinct MI355X suits workloads that prioritize raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its CDNA 4.0 architecture delivers 78.64 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16, both at a 1:1 ratio, which is 50% higher than the Intel part's 52.43 TFLOPS in each precision. The 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the Intel part's 3.21 TB/s, and the 288 GB HBM3e capacity dwarfs the Intel part's 128 GB HBM2e.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem serves workloads that need broader API compatibility and a more conventional physical footprint. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the AMD part reports no graphics APIs. The Intel part uses a dual-slot form factor with a single 16-pin power connector, whereas the AMD part is an OAM module with no power connectors. Intel's part is listed as active production, while AMD's part has no production status recorded.

Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database, so no pricing analysis is possible. The AMD part targets compute-centric deployments where memory capacity and bandwidth dominate. The Intel part targets environments requiring standard PCIe card mounting and established graphics API support.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI355X uses the MI350 chip with 256 compute units built on CDNA 4.0 architecture. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses the Ponte Vecchio chip fabricated on Generation 12.5 architecture. The process nodes differ fundamentally: AMD uses a 3 nm TSMC process, while Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry.

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The AMD chip packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, giving a density of 78.1 million per square millimeter. The densities are nearly identical, but the AMD die is roughly 86% larger and carries 85% more transistors.

Clock behavior differs in magnitude and direction. The AMD part has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 2400 MHz boost clock. The Intel part starts at 900 MHz base and boosts to 1600 MHz. The AMD boost clock is exactly 50% higher than Intel's boost, and its base clock is about 11% higher. Memory clocks also differ: AMD runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while Intel runs at 1565 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective speed.

Both parts share identical shading unit counts at 16,384, and identical texture mapping unit counts at 1,024. Neither has render output units, so pixel rates are zero for both. The AMD part reports no ray tracing cores, while the Intel part includes 128 ray tracing cores. Neither lists tensor cores.

The AMD part uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The Intel part uses 128 GB of HBM2e memory on the same 8192-bit bus width. The memory type and capacity differences drive the bandwidth gap: 8.19 TB/s versus 3.21 TB/s, a 2.55x advantage for AMD.

Power requirements differ substantially. The AMD part has a TDP of 1400 W and suggests an 1800 W power supply. The Intel part has a TDP of 2400 W and suggests a 2800 W power supply. The Intel part draws 71% more power while delivering 33% less FP32 throughput.

Physical design separates the two. The AMD part is an OAM module measuring 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, with no power connectors and no display outputs. The Intel part is dual-slot, 267 mm long, with one 16-pin power connector and no display outputs. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head benchmark data is empty, with zero wins recorded for either part. The comparison must rely on the specification-derived performance metrics.

FP32 compute shows the clearest separation. The AMD part delivers 78.64 TFLOPS, which is exactly 50% ahead of the Intel part's 52.43 TFLOPS. This margin appears in both FP32 and FP16, since each part reports a 1:1 ratio between the two precisions.

Texture rate follows the same pattern. The AMD part achieves 2,457.6 GTexel/s, which is exactly 50% higher than the Intel part's 1,638.4 GTexel/s. The 1,024 TMUs in each part are equal, so the texture rate difference comes entirely from clock speed: the AMD boost of 2400 MHz versus the Intel boost of 1600 MHz.

Memory bandwidth creates the largest relative gap. The AMD part's 8.19 TB/s is 155% higher than the Intel part's 3.21 TB/s. Both parts use an 8192-bit bus, so the bandwidth advantage comes from HBM3e versus HBM2e technology and the higher memory clock. The AMD memory clock runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while Intel runs at 1565 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective speed.

Memory capacity also favors AMD by a wide margin. The 288 GB allocation is 2.25x the Intel part's 128 GB. For workloads that exceed 128 GB of working set, the Intel part would require memory partitioning or streaming, while the AMD part holds the entire dataset in HBM3e.

Power efficiency inverts the compute relationship. The AMD part produces 78.64 TFLOPS within a 1400 W TDP, yielding 0.056 TFLOPS per watt. The Intel part produces 52.43 TFLOPS within a 2400 W TDP, yielding 0.022 TFLOPS per watt. The AMD part is roughly 2.5x more power-efficient on this metric.

The Intel part counters with API support. It reports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the AMD part reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. For any workload that requires these graphics APIs, the Intel part is the only option between the two.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in every major specification category except shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, bus interface, and display outputs.

Process node: AMD uses 3 nm TSMC; Intel uses 10 nm Intel.

Transistors: AMD has 185,000 million; Intel has 100,000 million.

Die size: AMD measures 2380 mm²; Intel measures 1280 mm².

Transistor density: AMD has 77.7M per mm²; Intel has 78.1M per mm².

Base clock: AMD runs at 1000 MHz; Intel runs at 900 MHz.

Boost clock: AMD runs at 2400 MHz; Intel runs at 1600 MHz.

Memory clock: AMD runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective; Intel runs at 1565 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective.

Memory size: AMD has 288 GB; Intel has 128 GB.

Memory type: AMD uses HBM3e; Intel uses HBM2e.

Memory bandwidth: AMD achieves 8.19 TB/s; Intel achieves 3.21 TB/s.

Ray tracing cores: AMD has none; Intel has 128.

Texture rate: AMD reaches 2,457.6 GTexel/s; Intel reaches 1,638.4 GTexel/s.

FP32: AMD delivers 78.64 TFLOPS; Intel delivers 52.43 TFLOPS.

FP16: AMD delivers 78.64 TFLOPS; Intel delivers 52.43 TFLOPS.

TDP: AMD consumes 1400 W; Intel consumes 2400 W.

Slot width: AMD uses OAM Module; Intel uses Dual-slot.

Power connectors: AMD has none; Intel has 1x 16-pin.

Suggested PSU: AMD recommends 1800 W; Intel recommends 2800 W.

APIs: AMD reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan; Intel reports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Dimensions: AMD is 102 mm long and 165 mm wide; Intel is 267 mm long with no recorded width.

Release date: AMD launched on 2025-06-11; Intel launched on 2023-01-09.

Production status: AMD has none recorded; Intel is Active.

Successor: AMD has none; Intel lists H3C Graphics as successor.

FAQ

Q: Which part has more FP32 compute power?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS FP32, which is exactly 50% higher than the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem's 52.43 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each part provide?

A: The AMD part provides 8.19 TB/s from 288 GB of HBM3e. The Intel part provides 3.21 TB/s from 128 GB of HBM2e. Both use an 8192-bit bus.

Q: Do both parts support graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD part reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The AMD part has a 1400 W TDP and suggests an 1800 W power supply. The Intel part has a 2400 W TDP and suggests a 2800 W power supply.

Q: Which part has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel part includes 128 ray tracing cores. The AMD part reports no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the physical form factors?

A: The AMD part is an OAM Module measuring 102 mm by 165 mm with no power connectors. The Intel part is dual-slot, 267 mm long, with one 16-pin power connector. Both are PCIe 5.0 x16 and have no display outputs.