AMD Instinct MI355X vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

The AMD Instinct MI355X and Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, one a 1400 W accelerator module for compute arrays, the other a 6 W integrated graphics processor for low-power portable devices. The database shows no direct benchmark scores for either product, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all recorded GPUs with an average benchmark score of zero. Consequently, the analysis below relies entirely on the recorded architectural and specification data, interpreting what the measured figures indicate about relative capability and design intent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no benchmark results for either product, so no direct performance comparisons can be drawn from measured workloads. Instead, the specification-derived throughput rates provide the only quantitative basis for comparison. The AMD Instinct MI355X delivers a texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s, which is 204.8 times the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile's 12.00 GTexel/s. In pixel fill rate, the Intel part reaches 4.000 GPixel/s, while the AMD part is recorded at 0 MPixel/s because it has zero ROPs, a direct consequence of its compute-focused design.

Floating-point output shows a similar disparity. The AMD accelerator records 78.64 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, with a 1:1 ratio indicating no dedicated half-precision acceleration path. The Intel integrated GPU records 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 768.0 GFLOPS FP16, with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes half-precision at double the rate of single-precision. The ratio difference indicates the Intel architecture uses packed FP16 execution, while the AMD part appears to treat both formats with identical throughput. In raw terms, the AMD part delivers 204.8 times the FP32 throughput and 102.4 times the FP16 throughput of the Intel part, matching the texture rate multiplier exactly.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The AMD MI355X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, a 2.4x boost ratio. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile runs at a 300 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost, a 3.33x ratio. The Intel part relies on a much wider clock range to manage thermals within its 6 W envelope, while the AMD part sustains a higher absolute boost frequency but with a narrower relative range.

Memory bandwidth presents the most extreme gap. The AMD Instinct MI355X uses 288 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile shares system memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent and no dedicated bus width. The recorded data gives no numerical bandwidth for the Intel part, but the AMD part's 8.19 TB/s represents a class of memory performance that integrated graphics cannot approach, given their shared-memory architecture.

The shading unit counts reinforce the throughput gap. The AMD part has 16,384 shading units, while the Intel part has 192, an 85.3x difference. Texture mapping units number 1,024 versus 12, an 85.3x difference as well. The ROP count differs categorically: the AMD part has zero ROPs, while the Intel part has 4. This structural divergence explains why the AMD part shows no pixel rate despite its massive compute resources.

FAQ

Q: Which product has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X boosts to 2400 MHz, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile boosts to 1000 MHz. The AMD part also has a higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz for the Intel part.

Q: Do both products support DirectX?

A: No. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI355X records no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, with all three listed as N/A.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory bus.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel.

Q: Which product has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has 16,384 shading units. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has 192 shading units, which is 85.3 times fewer.

Q: What power delivery does each require?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X has a 1400 W TDP and lists a suggested PSU of 1800 W, with no power connectors on the OAM module. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a 6 W TDP and no listed PSU requirement.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI355X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per square millimeter. The chip is designated MI350 256CU, indicating 256 compute units. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture on a 10 nm process at Intel, with the chip named Twin Lake. Transistor count and die size are unknown for the Intel part, and no density figure is recorded.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The AMD part integrates HBM3e with a dedicated 8192-bit bus, while the Intel part relies entirely on system shared memory. This means the AMD part has predictable, dedicated bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s, whereas the Intel part's bandwidth varies with the host system's memory configuration. The AMD part's 288 GB capacity exceeds typical system memory sizes, while the Intel part has no dedicated capacity of its own.

The compute pipeline structures are distinct. The AMD part has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, indicating a design optimized for compute workloads rather than rasterization. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs, a conventional layout for integrated graphics that must handle display output and 2D/3D rendering. Neither part records dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

API support separates the two clearly. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part lists N/A for all three, confirming it is not intended for consumer graphics APIs. The Intel part also provides display outputs described as portable device dependent, while the AMD part has no outputs at all.

The power and physical design reflect their intended environments. The AMD part has a 1400 W TDP, occupies an OAM Module slot width, measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, and lists a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The Intel part has a 6 W TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, has no dimensions recorded, and no PSU suggestion. The AMD part connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface.

Release timing shows the Intel part came first, with a release date of 2024-12-31, while the AMD part followed on 2025-06-11. The AMD part lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct, while the Intel part has no predecessor recorded. Production status for the AMD part is not recorded, while the Intel part is marked as active.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two products with no overlapping use cases. The AMD Instinct MI355X delivers compute throughput at a scale that the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile cannot approach: 78.64 TFLOPS FP32 versus 384.0 GFLOPS, 8.19 TB/s dedicated memory bandwidth versus system dependent, and 16,384 shading units versus 192. The AMD part also consumes 1400 W, requires an 1800 W PSU, uses an OAM Module form factor, and offers no display outputs or consumer API support. The Intel part consumes 6 W, fits as an IGP, supports DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and drives portable device displays.

For workloads that demand massive parallel computation, high-bandwidth memory access, and sustained throughput, the AMD Instinct MI355X is the only option in this comparison. Its 288 GB HBM3e pool and 8192-bit bus provide a memory subsystem that the Intel part cannot offer in any configuration. The absence of ROPs and API support confirms this is an accelerator, not a graphics card.

For systems requiring integrated graphics with standard API compatibility, low power draw, and display output, the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile fits that role. Its 6 W TDP suits portable devices, and its support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 covers mainstream graphics workloads. The recorded pixel rate of 4.000 GPixel/s and texture rate of 12.00 GTexel/s are modest but present, unlike the AMD part's zero pixel rate.

The selection depends entirely on the target environment. A compute rack with 1800 W PSU capacity and PCIe 5.0 x16 slots matches the AMD part. A low-power mobile device with shared memory and display requirements matches the Intel part. Neither product can substitute for the other, as the AMD part cannot render or output video, and the Intel part cannot approach the AMD part's compute or memory throughput. The data recommends the AMD Instinct MI355X for compute acceleration and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile for integrated graphics duties.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across every major specification field. Process node: 3 nm for AMD, 10 nm for Intel. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Transistors: 185,000 million for AMD, unknown for Intel. Die size: 2380 mm² for AMD, unknown for Intel. Transistor density: 77.7 million per mm² for AMD, not recorded for Intel.

Clocks: AMD base 1000 MHz, boost 2400 MHz; Intel base 300 MHz, boost 1000 MHz. Memory clock: AMD at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, Intel uses system shared memory with no dedicated clock. Memory size: 288 GB HBM3e versus system shared. Bus width: 8192 bit versus system shared. Bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus system dependent.

Shading units: 16,384 versus 192. TMUs: 1,024 versus 12. ROPs: 0 versus 4. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. FP32: 78.64 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. FP16: 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 1400 W versus 6 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus IGP. Power connectors: none for AMD, not recorded for Intel. Suggested PSU: 1800 W for AMD, not recorded for Intel. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs: no outputs for AMD, portable device dependent for Intel.

APIs: AMD lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan; Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Dimensions: AMD at 102 mm length and 165 mm width, Intel has no dimensions recorded. Release date: AMD 2025-06-11, Intel 2024-12-31. Predecessor: Radeon Instinct for AMD, none for Intel. Production status: not recorded for AMD, active for Intel. Launch MSRP: not recorded for either product.