AMD Instinct MI455X vs Intel Arc Pro A60M Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the AMD Instinct MI455X and the Intel Arc Pro A60M presents two fundamentally different hardware classes. The MI455X is a 2300 W EAM module designed for high-throughput compute with no display outputs, while the Arc Pro A60M is a 95 W integrated graphics processor for portable devices. The recorded data shows no head-to-head benchmark wins for either part, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 0. The MI455X targets server-scale acceleration workloads where its 432 GB HBM4 memory and 157.3 TFLOPS FP32 throughput matter. The Arc Pro A60M addresses mobile professional graphics needs with 8 GB GDDR6 and a 128-bit bus. Users requiring display output or DirectX support must choose the Arc Pro A60M, as the MI455X exposes no outputs and lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Users requiring massive memory capacity and bandwidth for data-center compute should select the MI455X, as its 23.3 TB/s bandwidth exceeds the Arc Pro A60M's 256.0 GB/s by two orders of magnitude.

Architecture Differences

The MI455X uses the CDNA 5.0 architecture on a 2 nm TSMC process, whereas the Arc Pro A60M uses Xe-HPG on a 6 nm TSMC process. The MI455X chip, designated MI450 256CU, contains 320,000 million transistors on a 2990 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 107.0M per mm². The Arc Pro A60M uses the DG2-256 chip with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, for a density of 42.8M per mm². The MI455X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the Arc Pro A60M belongs to the Alchemist (Pro-Series Mobile) generation.

The MI455X has 32768 shading units and 1024 texture mapping units, but 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. It reports no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The Arc Pro A60M has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 83.20 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 166.4 GTexel/s. The MI455X texture rate reaches 2,457.6 GTexel/s.

The MI455X uses HBM4 memory with 432 GB capacity, a 24576-bit bus, and 23.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro A60M uses GDDR6 with 8 GB capacity, a 128-bit bus, and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI455X memory clock is listed at 1900 MHz with 7.6 Gbps effective, while the Arc Pro A60M memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

The MI455X has no power connectors and recommends a 2700 W PSU. The Arc Pro A60M lists no power connector information and no suggested PSU. The MI455X connects via PCIe 6.0 x16, the Arc Pro A60M via PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI455X has no display outputs; the Arc Pro A60M outputs are portable device dependent. The MI455X supports no graphics APIs, while the Arc Pro A60M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X delivers 157.3 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the Intel Arc Pro A60M's 5.325 TFLOPS FP32. The MI455X is roughly 29.5 times higher in this metric.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI455X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI455X lists "No outputs" for display outputs, and its DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support are all marked N/A. The Intel Arc Pro A60M has portable device dependent outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The MI455X uses 432 GB of HBM4 on a 24576-bit bus with 23.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro A60M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing support?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M includes 16 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI455X reports no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The MI455X has a 2300 W TDP and requires a 2700 W suggested PSU. The Arc Pro A60M has a 95 W TDP and lists no suggested PSU.

Q: What process nodes and foundries are used?

A: Both use TSMC as the foundry. The MI455X uses a 2 nm process, while the Arc Pro A60M uses a 6 nm process.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every recorded specification. The MI455X uses a 2 nm process, the Arc Pro A60M a 6 nm process. Transistor count is 320,000 million versus 11,500 million. Die size is 2990 mm² versus 269 mm². Transistor density is 107.0M per mm² versus 42.8M per mm². Base clock is 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz. Boost clock is 2400 MHz versus 1300 MHz. Memory clock is 1900 MHz 7.6 Gbps effective versus 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective. Memory size is 432 GB versus 8 GB. Memory type is HBM4 versus GDDR6. Bus width is 24576 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is 23.3 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Shading units are 32768 versus 2048. TMUs are 1024 versus 128. ROPs are 0 versus 64. The MI455X has no ray tracing cores; the Arc Pro A60M has 16. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 83.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 157.3 TFLOPS versus 5.325 TFLOPS. FP16 is 157.3 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 2300 W versus 95 W. Slot width is EAM Module versus IGP. Power connectors are none versus not listed. Suggested PSU is 2700 W versus not listed. Bus interface is PCIe 6.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are none versus portable device dependent. DirectX support is N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL support is N/A versus 4.6. Vulkan support is N/A versus 1.4. Release dates differ as well: the MI455X released on 2026-07-22, the Arc Pro A60M on 2023-06-05. The MI455X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, while the Arc Pro A60M has no predecessor. Production status for the MI455X is not listed; the Arc Pro A60M is active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark entries for this pairing, and the wins count stands at zero for both parts. Both GPUs hold identical percentile positions at 50 among all GPUs, with average benchmark scores of zero. Without measured benchmark deltas, the comparison relies on the recorded specification data.

The FP32 compute gap is the largest differentiator. The MI455X delivers 157.3 TFLOPS, which is approximately 29.5 times the Arc Pro A60M's 5.325 TFLOPS. FP16 performance shows a similar pattern: the MI455X sustains 157.3 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Arc Pro A60M reaches 10.65 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The MI455X FP16 figure is about 14.8 times higher.

Memory bandwidth separates the two even more sharply. The MI455X provides 23.3 TB/s, compared to 256.0 GB/s for the Arc Pro A60M. That is roughly 91 times more bandwidth. The MI455X also offers 432 GB of memory capacity versus 8 GB, a 54-fold difference. The bus width difference is similarly extreme: 24576 bit versus 128 bit.

Texture throughput favors the MI455X at 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s, a factor of about 14.8. Pixel throughput, however, favors the Arc Pro A60M, since the MI455X has no ROPs and outputs 0 MPixel/s while the Arc Pro A60M produces 83.20 GPixel/s. Clock speeds differ modestly at the base level, 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz, but the boost clocks diverge more, 2400 MHz versus 1300 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI455X wins in raw compute throughput. Its 157.3 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures position it for dense numerical workloads. The 432 GB HBM4 memory with 23.3 TB/s bandwidth suits large data sets that cannot fit in smaller memory pools. The 24576-bit bus width enables data movement at a scale the Arc Pro A60M cannot approach. The 2 nm process and 320,000 million transistor count indicate a design optimized for massive parallel execution. The 2300 W TDP and 2700 W suggested PSU reflect a data-center oriented power envelope.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M wins in graphics output capability. It is the only one of the two with display outputs, listed as portable device dependent, and the only one with graphics API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 16 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced workloads. The 64 ROPs and 83.20 GPixel/s pixel rate give it actual rasterization throughput. The 95 W TDP makes it suitable for mobile or integrated contexts where power draw is constrained. The 6 nm process and 11,500 million transistor count fit a compact die of 269 mm².

For FP32-heavy compute tasks, the MI455X dominates. For rendering, display output, and API compatibility, the Arc Pro A60M is the functional choice. The data shows no overlap in their intended roles: the MI455X has no graphics pipeline, and the Arc Pro A60M has a fraction of the compute and memory resources. The percentile rankings are identical at 50, but that reflects the absence of benchmark data rather than comparable performance. The recorded specifications indicate that any workload requiring video output, ray tracing, or standard graphics APIs falls to the Arc Pro A60M, while any workload requiring extreme memory capacity, bandwidth, or FP32 throughput falls to the MI455X.