AMD Instinct MI455X vs Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI455X is built for compute density at an extreme scale. Its recorded data shows 157.3 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and an identical 157.3 TFLOPS of FP16 performance with a 1:1 ratio. That positions it as a device for massive parallel workloads where raw arithmetic throughput is the primary constraint. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile, by contrast, delivers 307.2 GFLOPS of FP32 and 614.4 GFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The delta in raw compute is enormous, but the two parts target entirely different operational envelopes.

The AMD part has 32,768 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units. Its texture rate is recorded at 2,457.6 GTexel/s. The Intel part uses 128 shading units and 8 TMUs, with a texture rate of 9.600 GTexel/s. The AMD accelerator is over 256 times higher in shader count and over 256 times higher in texture throughput. These are not competing products in any practical sense; they are separated by design intent, power class, and deployment context.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile wins in the integrated graphics space by being present. It is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, a Ring Bus interface, and system-shared memory. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI455X has no display outputs, no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, and requires a 2700 W suggested PSU. The AMD part is not a graphics card in the conventional sense; it is an accelerator module with zero pixel output capability.

The data shows that the AMD part wins every compute category where numbers exist. The Intel part wins only in categories related to being a functional integrated GPU for a mobile platform: API compatibility, display output, and low power draw. The recorded benchmark scores for both are zero, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. With no benchmark entries and no nearest rivals listed, the comparative analysis relies entirely on the specification tables.

Architecture Differences

The manufacturing and silicon characteristics diverge sharply. The AMD Instinct MI455X uses a 2 nm process at TSMC, with 320,000 million transistors on a 2990 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 107.0M per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses a 10 nm process at Intel, with no transistor count, die size, or density recorded in the database. The process gap alone explains much of the difference in power efficiency and density, though the Intel part is an integrated solution while the AMD part is a standalone module.

The AMD chip is designated MI450 256CU, built on CDNA 5.0 architecture, and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. Its predecessor is Radeon Instinct. The Intel chip is Raptor Lake, based on Generation 12.2 architecture, and belongs to the HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake) generation. Its successor is Arc Graphics-M. The AMD architecture is compute-optimized with no render output units recorded and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Intel architecture includes 4 ROPs and a pixel rate of 4.800 GPixel/s.

Memory configuration is another major separator. The AMD Instinct MI455X uses 432 GB of HBM4 memory on a 24576-bit bus, delivering 23.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1900 MHz with 7.6 Gbps effective. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory clock beyond its base and boost clocks of 300 MHz and 1200 MHz respectively. The AMD part has 432 GB of on-package memory; the Intel part borrows from the host system.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD part runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. The Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. The AMD boost clock is double the Intel boost clock, but the AMD part consumes 2300 W against the Intel part's 15 W. The AMD slot width is listed as EAM Module with no power connectors, while the Intel part is an IGP with no power connector requirement. The bus interfaces are PCIe 6.0 x16 for AMD and Ring Bus for Intel.

The AMD part has no display outputs and no API support. The Intel part has portable device dependent display outputs and full API coverage for modern graphics stacks. The AMD part's production status is not recorded; the Intel part is marked Active. Release dates are 2026-07-22 for the AMD part and 2023-01-03 for the Intel part. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports only one conclusion: these are not substitutes. The AMD Instinct MI455X is a compute accelerator with no display path, no graphics API support, and a 2300 W TDP. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile is an integrated GPU for portable devices, with 15 W power draw, shared memory, and full API compatibility. Any workload that requires rendering to a screen or running a conventional graphics stack falls to the Intel part. Any workload that requires massive parallel arithmetic falls to the AMD part.

The FP32 gap is 157.3 TFLOPS versus 307.2 GFLOPS. That is a difference of roughly 512 times in raw FP32 throughput. The FP16 figures show 157.3 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio for AMD versus 614.4 GFLOPS at 2:1 ratio for Intel. The AMD part processes FP16 at the same rate as FP32; the Intel part processes FP16 at twice its FP32 rate. Even with that 2:1 advantage, the Intel part remains over 256 times slower than the AMD part in FP16.

The AMD part has 432 GB of HBM4 memory with 23.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has no dedicated memory. The AMD part has 32,768 shaders; the Intel part has 128. The AMD part has 1,024 TMUs; the Intel part has 8. The AMD part has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate; the Intel part has 4 ROPs and 4.800 GPixel/s. Every specification point confirms the same split.

The database records no benchmark entries for either part, no nearest rivals, and no head-to-head benchmarks. Both sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, which reflects the absence of measured scores rather than any performance parity. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the AMD Instinct MI455X is for compute arrays, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile is for mobile graphics output. Selecting one over the other requires knowing which function the system needs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X records 157.3 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile records 307.2 GFLOPS. The AMD part is substantially higher.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI455X support display output?

A: No. The database lists display outputs as "No outputs" for the AMD part and pixel rate at 0 MPixel/s. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile lists "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs.

Q: What is the power requirement for each?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X has a TDP of 2300 W and a suggested PSU of 2700 W. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile has a TDP of 15 W and no suggested PSU recorded.

Q: What memory configurations do these use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X uses 432 GB of HBM4 on a 24576-bit bus with 23.3 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which API set does each support?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the process nodes for these parts?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X uses a 2 nm process at TSMC. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries, no individual benchmark scores, and no nearest rival comparisons for either part. The comparison must therefore be drawn from the recorded specification data, which provides clear quantitative separations.

The largest compute lead for the AMD Instinct MI455X appears in FP32 throughput. The AMD part records 157.3 TFLOPS, which is 157.0 TFLOPS higher than the Intel part's 307.2 GFLOPS. In FP16, the AMD part records 157.3 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part records 614.4 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part's FP16 figure is over 256 times the Intel figure.

Texture rate shows a similar gap. The AMD part records 2,457.6 GTexel/s against the Intel part's 9.600 GTexel/s. Shader count is 32,768 versus 128, and TMU count is 1,024 versus 8. The AMD part has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate; the Intel part has 4 ROPs and 4.800 GPixel/s. The Intel part wins the pixel rate comparison because the AMD part has no pixel pipeline at all.

Memory bandwidth is dominated by the AMD part at 23.3 TB/s, with 432 GB of HBM4 on a 24576-bit bus. The Intel part has no dedicated memory bandwidth figure, only "System Dependent" for system-shared memory. Clock speeds show the AMD part at 1000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, against the Intel part's 300 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost.

Power consumption is the one category where the Intel part is dramatically lower. The AMD part draws 2300 W with a 2700 W suggested PSU; the Intel part draws 15 W. That 2285 W difference defines their deployment contexts: the AMD part requires an enterprise power infrastructure, the Intel part operates within a mobile platform's thermal envelope. The API support column also favors the Intel part, with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 all present, while the AMD part lists N/A for all three.

The release timeline shows the Intel part arriving on 2023-01-03 and the AMD part on 2026-07-22. The Intel part is marked Active in production status; the AMD part has no production status recorded. The Intel part has a successor in Arc Graphics-M, while the AMD part's predecessor is Radeon Instinct with no successor listed. The bus interfaces are Ring Bus for Intel and PCIe 6.0 x16 for AMD.

Both parts sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, and both have an average benchmark score of zero. That is a data artifact of having no recorded benchmarks, not a statement of equivalence. The specification deltas are the only meaningful measurement available, and they show a compute accelerator against an integrated graphics processor with no overlap in function, power class, or intended workload.