AMD Instinct MI455X vs Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data separates these two accelerators by workload type rather than by a single overall winner. The AMD Instinct MI455X holds its advantages in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth, making it suited for large-scale training and data-intensive workloads. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem counters with API support, a smaller physical footprint, and a more established production status.

For FP32 and FP16 compute, the MI455X delivers 157.3 TFLOPS in both precisions, exactly three times the Intel part's 52.43 TFLOPS at each precision. That threefold margin shows up across both single-precision and half-precision tasks, meaning the AMD accelerator dominates general compute workloads that rely on these formats. The texture rate follows the same pattern: 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 1,638.4 GTexel/s, a 1.5x advantage for AMD.

Memory is where the separation becomes stark. The MI455X carries 432 GB of HBM4 across a 24,576-bit bus, yielding 23.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel subsystem has 128 GB of HBM2e on an 8,192-bit bus, producing 3.21 TB/s. That is 3.4x more capacity and 7.3x more bandwidth for AMD. Workloads that stream large datasets or hold big models in memory will favor the MI455X decisively.

The Intel part wins where software compatibility matters. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the AMD part reports N/A for all three major graphics APIs. The Intel accelerator also has 128 ray tracing cores, a feature the AMD part does not list. For any workload that touches graphics pipelines or ray tracing, Intel is the only option between the two.

Physical design differences also separate them. The Intel card is a dual-slot unit 267 mm long with a single 16-pin power connector and a 2,800 W suggested PSU. The AMD module uses an EAM form factor, has no power connectors listed, and suggests a 2,700 W PSU. The Intel card uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the AMD module uses PCIe 6.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different design philosophies. AMD builds on the CDNA 5.0 architecture with a chip designated MI450 256CU, fabricated on a 2 nm process at TSMC. Intel uses Generation 12.5 architecture with the Ponte Vecchio chip, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own fabs.

Transistor counts reveal the scale gap. The AMD chip packs 320,000 million transistors on a 2,990 mm² die, achieving a density of 107.0M transistors per mm². The Intel chip has 100,000 million transistors on a 1,280 mm² die, with 78.1M transistors per mm². The AMD die is more than twice the physical size and carries three times the transistor count.

The compute units differ substantially. AMD lists 32,768 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units. Intel lists 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs, meaning the TMU count is identical but AMD has exactly double the shader count. Neither part has ROPs, and both report 0 MPixel/s pixel rate.

Ray tracing creates a clear separation. Intel includes 128 RT cores; AMD does not list any. Tensor cores are absent from both specification sheets, so neither part relies on dedicated tensor hardware in the recorded data.

Memory architecture diverges by a full generation. AMD uses HBM4 with 7.6 Gbps effective speed, while Intel uses HBM2e at 3.1 Gbps effective. The bus widths are 24,576 bits for AMD versus 8,192 bits for Intel. Clock speeds also differ: AMD runs at 1000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, Intel at 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost.

Power requirements are similar despite the performance gap. AMD lists a 2,300 W TDP with a 2,700 W suggested PSU. Intel lists 2,400 W TDP with a 2,800 W suggested PSU. The Intel card draws slightly more power while delivering less than a third of the FP32 throughput.

Release timing shows a generational gap. The Intel subsystem launched on 2023-01-09 and remains in active production. The AMD MI455X has a release date of 2026-07-22 and lists a predecessor of Radeon Instinct. The Intel part has a successor listed as H3C Graphics, while the AMD part has no successor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X delivers 157.3 TFLOPS FP32, exactly three times the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem's 52.43 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each part carry?

A: The AMD MI455X has 432 GB of HBM4 with 23.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel subsystem has 128 GB of HBM2e with 3.21 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either accelerator support graphics APIs?

A: Only the Intel part reports graphics API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: Which accelerator has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem includes 128 ray tracing cores. The AMD MI455X does not list any RT cores in its specifications.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The AMD part has a 2,300 W TDP and suggests a 2,700 W PSU. The Intel part has a 2,400 W TDP and suggests a 2,800 W PSU.

Q: Which part is physically larger?

A: The AMD MI455X uses an EAM Module form factor with no listed dimensions. The Intel card is a dual-slot unit measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI455X | Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 5.0 | Generation 12.5 |

| Chip | MI450 256CU | Ponte Vecchio |

| Process Node | 2 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 320,000 million | 100,000 million |

| Die Size | 2,990 mm² | 1,280 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 107.0M / mm² | 78.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1,000 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2,400 MHz | 1,600 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1,900 MHz, 7.6 Gbps effective | 1,565 MHz, 3.1 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 432 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM4 | HBM2e |

| Memory Bus | 24,576 bit | 8,192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 23.3 TB/s | 3.21 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 32,768 | 16,384 |

| TMUs | 1,024 | 1,024 |

| RT Cores | Not listed | 128 |

| FP32 | 157.3 TFLOPS | 52.43 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 157.3 TFLOPS (1:1) | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Texture Rate | 2,457.6 GTexel/s | 1,638.4 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 2,300 W | 2,400 W |

| Slot Width | EAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 2,700 W | 2,800 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 6.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Length | Not listed | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

| Release Date | 2026-07-22 | 2023-01-09 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Not listed |

| Successor | Not listed | H3C Graphics |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head benchmark list is empty, so the comparison relies entirely on the specification data. The biggest single margin is FP32 compute: AMD's 157.3 TFLOPS versus Intel's 52.43 TFLOPS gives AMD a 3.0x advantage. FP16 shows the same 3.0x ratio with identical numbers, confirming that AMD's 1:1 FP16/FP32 ratio matches Intel's but at three times the throughput.

Memory bandwidth produces an even larger gap. AMD's 23.3 TB/s versus Intel's 3.21 TB/s means AMD moves data 7.3x faster. This becomes the deciding factor for workloads that cannot fit in cache and must stream from VRAM. The memory capacity difference of 432 GB versus 128 GB gives AMD 3.4x more resident data, reducing the need for host-side transfers.

Texture rate favors AMD at 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 1,638.4 GTexel/s, a 1.5x margin. This correlates with the identical TMU count of 1,024, meaning AMD's advantage comes from its higher clock speed (2,400 MHz boost versus 1,600 MHz boost) rather than from more texture units.

Clock speeds show AMD at 1000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while Intel runs at 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. The AMD boost clock is 1.5x higher. This clock advantage compounds with the 2x shader count to produce the 3x FP32 gap.

The Intel part counters in areas that do not appear in raw compute numbers. Its 128 RT cores provide hardware acceleration for ray tracing workloads, a capability absent from the AMD specifications. The Intel card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, enabling graphics workloads that the AMD part cannot handle due to its N/A API entries.

Power efficiency also favors AMD. At 157.3 TFLOPS with a 2,300 W TDP, the AMD part delivers 68.4 TFLOPS per kilowatt. The Intel part delivers 21.8 TFLOPS per kilowatt at 52.43 TFLOPS and 2,400 W. AMD is 3.1x more power-efficient in FP32 throughput per watt.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. Choose the AMD Instinct MI455X for compute-heavy workloads that demand maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, large memory capacity, or extreme memory bandwidth. Its 157.3 TFLOPS at both precisions, 432 GB of HBM4, and 23.3 TB/s bandwidth make it the dominant choice for large-scale training, inference, and data-intensive scientific computing.

Choose the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem for workloads that require graphics API support or ray tracing. It is the only one of the two with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and 128 RT cores. Its dual-slot form factor and 267 mm length make it easier to integrate into standard server chassis, and its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface remains compatible with current platforms. The Intel part is also the only one in active production with a confirmed launch date of 2023-01-09.

The AMD part targets a later generation with its 2026-07-22 release date. Its PCIe 6.0 x16 bus interface and HBM4 memory represent newer standards that require correspondingly newer platform support. The lack of listed dimensions or power connectors reflects its EAM Module form factor, which differs from the Intel card's conventional dual-slot design.

Neither part should be chosen for pixel rendering, as both report 0 MPixel/s. Neither lists tensor cores, so workloads requiring dedicated tensor hardware must look elsewhere. The AMD part's threefold compute advantage and sevenfold bandwidth advantage make it the clear choice for pure throughput. The Intel part's API support and ray tracing capability make it the only choice for graphics-adjacent workloads. The production status of the Intel part and the future-dated release of the AMD part also factor into deployment timelines.