AMD Instinct MI455X vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI455X and the Intel Arc Pro B370. Both products show an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals are listed for either part. This absence of measured data makes a conventional performance comparison impossible. The analysis must therefore rely on the architectural and specification fields that are present in the database.

What the data does show is a stark contrast in raw compute capacity. The AMD Instinct MI455X delivers 157.3 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at roughly 25.6 times the FP32 rate of the Intel part. In FP16, the AMD part also delivers 157.3 TFLOPS, using a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel part reaches 12.29 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio. The AMD accelerator holds a 12.8 times advantage in FP16 throughput. These are not marginal differences. They represent entirely different performance classes.

Texture throughput follows the same pattern. The AMD Instinct MI455X reaches 2,457.6 GTexel/s, compared to 96.00 GTexel/s for the Intel Arc Pro B370. That is a 25.6 times gap, consistent with the FP32 ratio. Pixel rate tells a different story, however. The AMD part reports 0 MPixel/s, meaning it has no conventional pixel output stage, while the Intel part reports 48.00 GPixel/s. The AMD accelerator is not designed for rasterization output. The Intel part is.

The only clock value that matches between the two is the boost clock. Both list a boost of 2400 MHz. Base clocks diverge sharply: the AMD part runs at 1000 MHz, while the Intel part idles at 300 MHz. Memory clocks are not comparable, since the AMD part uses a fixed 1900 MHz with 7.6 Gbps effective transfer, while the Intel part relies on system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI455X wins in every category that measures dedicated compute throughput. Its 32,768 shading units dwarf the Intel part's 1,280. Its 1,024 texture mapping units exceed the Intel part's 40 by a factor of 25.6. The AMD part also has no raster operating units, listing 0 ROPs, which confirms its role as a compute accelerator rather than a graphics renderer. The Intel Arc Pro B370, by contrast, has 20 ROPs and 10 ray tracing cores, neither of which the AMD part reports. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part lists N/A for all three APIs. That makes the Intel part the clear winner for graphics workloads and API compatibility.

Memory capacity and bandwidth belong to the AMD part. The Instinct MI455X carries 432 GB of HBM4 memory on a 24,576-bit bus, with 23.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth. No fixed capacity or bus width is recorded for the Intel part. The AMD part also uses a 2 nm process with 320,000 million transistors on a 2,990 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 107.0M per mm². The Intel part uses a 3 nm process from Intel, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins in power efficiency and physical integration. Its TDP is 25 W, compared to 2,300 W for the AMD part. The Intel part is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The AMD part is an EAM Module with no power connectors but a suggested PSU of 2,700 W. For portable or low-power systems, the Intel part is the only viable option. The AMD part requires a massive power delivery infrastructure.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X delivers 157.3 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. The AMD part leads by a factor of 25.6.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B370 support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The database lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for the Intel part. The AMD Instinct MI455X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each product?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X has 432 GB of HBM4 memory on a 24,576-bit bus with 23.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X has a TDP of 2,300 W and a suggested PSU of 2,700 W. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a TDP of 25 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which product supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 lists 10 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI455X lists no ray tracing cores (null in the database).

Q: Are both products on the same process node?

A: No. The AMD Instinct MI455X uses a 2 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses a 3 nm process from Intel.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every recorded field. The AMD Instinct MI455X uses the MI450 256CU chip with CDNA 5.0 architecture, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture. The AMD part is in the Instinct (MIx) generation; the Intel part is in the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation.

Process node: AMD uses 2 nm from TSMC. Intel uses 3 nm from Intel. Transistor count: AMD lists 320,000 million; Intel lists unknown. Die size: AMD lists 2,990 mm²; Intel lists unknown. Transistor density: AMD lists 107.0M per mm²; Intel lists null.

Base clock: AMD 1000 MHz, Intel 300 MHz. Boost clock: both 2400 MHz. Memory clock: AMD 1900 MHz with 7.6 Gbps effective; Intel lists system shared. Memory size: AMD 432 GB, Intel system shared. Memory type: AMD HBM4, Intel system shared. Bus width: AMD 24,576 bit, Intel system shared. Bandwidth: AMD 23.3 TB/s, Intel system dependent.

Shading units: AMD 32,768, Intel 1,280. TMUs: AMD 1,024, Intel 40. ROPs: AMD 0, Intel 20. Ray tracing cores: AMD null, Intel 10. Pixel rate: AMD 0 MPixel/s, Intel 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: AMD 2,457.6 GTexel/s, Intel 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32: AMD 157.3 TFLOPS, Intel 6.144 TFLOPS. FP16: AMD 157.3 TFLOPS (1:1), Intel 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: AMD 2,300 W, Intel 25 W. Slot width: AMD EAM Module, Intel IGP. Power connectors: both none. Suggested PSU: AMD 2,700 W, Intel null. Bus interface: AMD PCIe 6.0 x16, Intel IGP. Display outputs: AMD no outputs, Intel portable device dependent. DirectX: AMD N/A, Intel 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL: AMD N/A, Intel 4.6. Vulkan: AMD N/A, Intel 1.4. Production status: AMD null, Intel active. Release date: AMD 2026-07-22, Intel 2026-01-26. Predecessor: AMD Radeon Instinct, Intel HD Graphics-WM. Launch MSRP: neither product lists one.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI455X is built on the CDNA 5.0 architecture, a compute-focused design. The chip is labeled MI450 256CU, and the use of 256 compute units aligns with the 32,768 shading units recorded. The absence of ROPs and display outputs confirms that this is not a graphics-oriented processor. The lack of DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support reinforces that classification. The AMD part uses HBM4 memory, a 2 nm TSMC process, and a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface. It has no ray tracing cores listed.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Panther Lake chip. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no discrete bus interface. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It includes 10 ray tracing cores, 20 ROPs, and 1,280 shading units. Memory is system shared, which means bandwidth and capacity depend on the host system. The process node is 3 nm from Intel, and the production status is active. The Intel part supports display outputs, though they are listed as portable device dependent.

The architectural split is clear: CDNA 5.0 is a dedicated compute architecture with massive memory and throughput, while Xe3-LPG is a low-power integrated graphics architecture with full API support and ray tracing. The AMD part has no graphics API stack, no display output, and no rasterization units. The Intel part has a complete graphics stack and conventional rendering pipeline. The transistor counts tell a similar story: AMD packs 320,000 million transistors into 2,990 mm², while Intel's transistor count is unknown but the part is only 25 W.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products with opposite design goals. The AMD Instinct MI455X is a compute accelerator for workloads that demand enormous FP32 and FP16 throughput, large memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth. Its 157.3 TFLOPS FP32, 432 GB HBM4, and 23.3 TB/s bandwidth place it in a category where graphics output is irrelevant. The lack of display outputs, the zero pixel rate, and the N/A API entries all confirm that this part is intended for data center or specialized compute environments. The 2,300 W TDP and 2,700 W suggested PSU make its power requirements explicit.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 is a low-power integrated GPU for systems where graphics output and API compatibility matter. Its 25 W TDP, IGP slot width, and portable device dependent display outputs point to mobile or embedded usage. The 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 and 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 are modest, but the part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and includes 10 ray tracing cores. It has 20 ROPs and a 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, which means it can drive displays and render graphics normally.

Who should pick which depends entirely on the workload. The AMD Instinct MI455X is the only choice for compute tasks that can use its 32,768 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 432 GB memory. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is the only choice for systems requiring an integrated graphics solution with modern API support and display output. The two parts do not compete in the same market segment. The database shows no benchmark overlap, no shared nearest rivals, and no head-to-head results. The specification differences are so large that a direct performance comparison is not meaningful. The AMD part wins on raw compute and memory. The Intel part wins on graphics features, API support, and power efficiency.