AMD Instinct MI455X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for the AMD Instinct MI455X and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 shows two accelerators with completely different design targets, despite both occupying the data center compute space. With no head-to-head benchmarks or per-part benchmark scores in the database, the division of wins must be derived from the architectural and specification differences alone.

The AMD Instinct MI455X wins outright on raw compute throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 figures of 157.3 TFLOPS each represent a 3.5x advantage over the Intel part’s 44.44 TFLOPS in both precisions. For workloads dominated by dense matrix math, such as large-scale AI training or scientific simulation running FP32/FP16 kernels, the MI455X is the clear leader. The texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 1,388.8 GTexel/s for the Intel accelerator further confirms AMD’s dominance in tasks that exercise the shading and texturing pipeline, even in a compute-oriented context.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins on accessibility and integration with standard software ecosystems. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the AMD part reports N/A for all graphics APIs. For compute stacks that leverage these APIs, or for hybrid compute/visualization workloads where graphics API support matters, the Intel card holds a unique advantage. The Intel accelerator also carries 112 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD specification sheet. While ray tracing is not a typical data center compute workload, its presence indicates a broader functional range.

The Intel part wins on operational efficiency in constrained environments. Its 450 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 850 W contrasts sharply with the AMD part’s 2300 W TDP and 2700 W suggested PSU. In dense server racks where power delivery and thermal dissipation are limiting factors, the Intel accelerator offers a much lower barrier to deployment. The AMD part’s EAM Module slot width versus Intel’s OAM Module slot width also indicates different physical integration requirements, though both are modular accelerator form factors.

The AMD accelerator wins on memory capacity and bandwidth decisively. Its 432 GB of HBM4 memory with 23.3 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the Intel part’s 96 GB of HBM2e with 2.46 TB/s. For models or datasets that exceed 96 GB, the AMD part is the only viable option between the two. The 24576-bit bus width versus 8192-bit further emphasizes AMD’s memory subsystem advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators stem from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Instinct MI455X uses the CDNA 5.0 architecture built on a 2 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 uses the Generation 12.5 architecture, commonly associated with the Ponte Vecchio chip, fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process. The process node difference is substantial: 2 nm versus 10 nm, which partially explains the massive transistor count disparity.

AMD packs 320,000 million transistors onto a 2990 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 107.0 million transistors per square millimeter. Intel’s Ponte Vecchio contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, for a density of 78.1 million per square millimeter. AMD achieves roughly 37% higher transistor density, allowing more compute units in a similar physical footprint, though the AMD die is more than twice as large overall.

The compute configuration diverges sharply. The AMD part implements 32,768 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The Intel part has 14,336 shading units and 896 TMUs, also with zero ROPs. Neither part has any pixel output capability, consistent with their accelerator roles, but AMD’s shading unit count is 2.3x higher. The Intel part includes 112 ray tracing cores, which AMD omits entirely.

Memory architecture reflects different generations of HBM technology. AMD uses HBM4 with 432 GB capacity across a 24576-bit bus, achieving 23.3 TB/s bandwidth. Intel uses HBM2e with 96 GB across an 8192-bit bus, achieving 2.46 TB/s. The memory clock differs as well: AMD runs at 1900 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) while Intel runs at 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective). The bus width advantage for AMD is 3x, and the bandwidth advantage is nearly 9.5x.

Clock speeds show a notable inversion. AMD’s base clock of 1000 MHz boosts to 2400 MHz. Intel’s base clock is 750 MHz with a 1550 MHz boost. Despite the higher clock rates, AMD’s TDP of 2300 W versus Intel’s 450 W indicates the power cost of that performance. The bus interface also differs: AMD uses PCIe 6.0 x16, while Intel uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Both are current-generation interfaces, but AMD is one generation ahead.

The release timeline places the Intel part first. Its release date is 2023-01-09, and it is marked as Active production status. The AMD part has a release date of 2026-07-22, with no production status recorded. AMD’s predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while Intel’s successor is H3C Graphics. Neither part has any display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two accelerators, and the average benchmark score for both is 0. With no measured performance data, the comparison relies entirely on the recorded specification fields. The wins each way are therefore structural, not empirical.

The largest win for AMD is in FP32 compute. At 157.3 TFLOPS versus 44.44 TFLOPS, the MI455X delivers 3.54x the single-precision throughput of the Intel Max 1350. The FP16 figures are identical to the FP32 figures for both parts, indicating 1:1 ratios, so the same 3.54x advantage applies to half-precision compute. This is the most significant numerical gap in the entire comparison.

The second major win for AMD is memory bandwidth. The 23.3 TB/s of the MI455X is 9.47x the 2.46 TB/s of the Intel part. This is a larger relative difference than the compute gap, which matters for memory-bound workloads. The capacity difference of 432 GB versus 96 GB is a 4.5x advantage for AMD.

The texture rate favors AMD by a factor of 1.77x, with 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 1,388.8 GTexel/s. This is a smaller margin than compute or memory, but still substantial. The shading unit count favors AMD by 2.29x (32,768 versus 14,336), and the TMU count favors AMD by 1.14x (1,024 versus 896).

The Intel part wins on power efficiency by a wide margin. At 450 W versus 2300 W, the Intel accelerator consumes 5.11x less power. When normalized to FP32 performance, Intel delivers 44.44 TFLOPS at 450 W, which is 98.8 GFLOPS per watt. AMD delivers 157.3 TFLOPS at 2300 W, which is 68.4 GFLOPS per watt. Intel is roughly 1.44x more power-efficient on this metric. This is a critical differentiator for deployment density.

Intel also wins on ray tracing capability, having 112 RT cores where AMD has none. The API support difference is absolute: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while AMD reports N/A for all three graphics APIs. The transistor density favors AMD at 107.0M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm², a 1.37x advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher peak FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X delivers 157.3 TFLOPS FP32, which is 3.54x the 44.44 TFLOPS of the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The AMD part uses 432 GB of HBM4 on a 24576-bit bus for 23.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses 96 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus for 2.46 TB/s. AMD has 4.5x the capacity and 9.47x the bandwidth.

Q: Does either accelerator support graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD Instinct MI455X reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Neither part has display outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X has a 2300 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 2700 W. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has a 450 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 850 W.

Q: Which accelerator has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 includes 112 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI455X lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: How do the manufacturing processes compare?

A: AMD uses a 2 nm process from TSMC with 320,000 million transistors on a 2990 mm² die. Intel uses a 10 nm process with 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear split based on workload and deployment constraints. The AMD Instinct MI455X is the choice for maximum absolute compute and memory capacity. Its 157.3 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, combined with 432 GB of HBM4 and 23.3 TB/s bandwidth, positions it for the largest AI training runs and the most memory-intensive scientific workloads. The 3.54x compute advantage and 9.47x bandwidth advantage over the Intel part are decisive for any workload that fits within the power envelope.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 is the choice for power-constrained environments and for compute stacks that require graphics API support. Its 450 W TDP, which is 5.11x lower than the AMD part, allows far denser server deployments. The DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support, plus 112 ray tracing cores, give it a functional range that the AMD part lacks entirely. For workloads that do not need the massive memory or compute of the MI455X, the Intel accelerator provides a lower-overhead path.

The percentile rankings in the database place both parts at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, with no benchmark scores recorded, indicating a neutral standing. The absence of empirical measurements means these conclusions rest on the specification data alone. The AMD part’s 2026 release date and the Intel part’s 2023 release date also suggest different market timing, with Intel having a longer operational history. The successor relationship for Intel, listed as H3C Graphics, indicates an ongoing product line, while AMD’s predecessor Radeon Instinct shows lineage but no successor. For pure compute density and memory scale, the MI455X wins. For power efficiency, API compatibility, and deployment flexibility, the Max 1350 wins.