AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 occupy opposite ends of the graphics hardware spectrum, one built for low-power client systems and the other engineered for high-throughput compute workloads. The recorded data shows both cards hold a 50th percentile position among all GPUs, yet their physical construction, memory systems, and performance ceilings diverge sharply. The RX 9050 OEM uses a compact 4 nm TSMC chip with 29,700 million transistors, while the Intel part relies on a massive 10 nm Intel-built die containing 100,000 million transistors. These differences manifest in every measurable field, from thermal design power to memory bandwidth, and the analysis below breaks down what each component actually delivers.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM serves systems requiring a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector, a 250 W suggested power supply, and display outputs including HDMI 2.1b and two DisplayPort 2.1a connections. Its 92 W thermal design power places it in a class where standard desktop power supplies suffice. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100, by contrast, demands a 300 W thermal design power, a 700 W suggested power supply, a 12-pin power connector, and offers no display outputs at all. This is a compute accelerator, not a graphics card for a workstation monitor.

Benchmark results indicate the Intel card is the stronger raw compute device. It delivers 22.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, more than double the AMD card's 10.65 TFLOPS. The Intel part also carries 48 GB of HBM2e memory across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth, versus the AMD card's 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus at 144.0 GB/s. For anyone processing large datasets or running dense numerical workloads, the Intel accelerator is the logical choice. The AMD card, however, is the only one of the two that can connect to a display, making it the functional option for a desktop system. The data does not present a single winner; it presents two tools for different jobs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing philosophies. AMD's Navi 44 chip uses RDNA 4.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, packing 29,700 million transistors into a 199 mm² die. That produces a transistor density of 149.2 million per square millimeter, a figure that reflects a modern, dense fabrication process. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses Ponte Vecchio silicon built on Intel's 10 nm process. Its die measures 1280 mm² and contains 100,000 million transistors, for a density of 78.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip is far larger and carries more than three times the transistor count, but its process node is less dense.

The compute resources are equally divergent. The AMD card uses 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, with 16 ray tracing cores. The Intel card uses 7168 shading units and 448 texture mapping units, with 56 ray tracing cores, but reports zero render output units and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. That zero pixel rate is a direct consequence of the Intel card having no display outputs; it is not designed to rasterize frames for a screen. The texturing capability tells a similar story: Intel's 694.4 GTexel/s more than quadruples AMD's 166.4 GTexel/s, while AMD's 166.4 GPixel/s pixel throughput has no counterpart on the Intel side.

Memory architecture reinforces the gap. AMD uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 144.0 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses 48 GB of HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel memory subsystem offers roughly 8.5 times the bandwidth and 12 times the capacity. Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The AMD chip runs at a 1330 MHz base, a 1920 MHz game clock, and a 2600 MHz boost, with memory at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective. The Intel chip runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost, with memory at 600 MHz or 1200 Mbps effective. The AMD part relies on higher clocks; the Intel part relies on massive parallelism and a wide memory bus.

API support also differs. AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan listed as null. The AMD card meets the higher DirectX feature level, which matters for gaming and graphics applications. The Intel card's API set is more limited, consistent with its data center orientation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two cards, so a point-by-point comparison rests on the recorded specification data. The largest single advantage belongs to Intel in memory bandwidth. The 1.23 TB/s figure is the highest memory bandwidth value recorded for either card, and it is more than eight times the AMD card's 144.0 GB/s. In workloads that stream large matrices or volumes of data, that bandwidth advantage is decisive.

Compute throughput is the next major split. Intel's FP32 performance of 22.22 TFLOPS exceeds AMD's 10.65 TFLOPS by a factor of roughly 2.09. The same ratio applies to FP16, where both cards report a 1:1 ratio: Intel at 22.22 TFLOPS and AMD at 10.65 TFLOPS. The Intel card also leads in texture rate with 694.4 GTexel/s against AMD's 166.4 GTexel/s, a margin of about 4.17 times. Shading unit count follows the same pattern, with Intel's 7168 shading units versus AMD's 1024, a 7-to-1 ratio.

AMD claims the advantages where graphics output matters. The RX 9050 OEM is the only card with a pixel rate, 166.4 GPixel/s, because the Intel accelerator has no display path. AMD also leads in clock speeds, with a 2600 MHz boost versus Intel's 1550 MHz boost, and a 1330 MHz base versus Intel's 1000 MHz base. The AMD game clock of 1920 MHz has no equivalent on the Intel card, which lists no game clock at all. The AMD card's render output units, 64 of them, are present where the Intel card reports none.

Process technology is another clear differentiator. The AMD chip is built on a 4 nm process with a 199 mm² die, while the Intel chip uses a 10 nm process with a 1280 mm² die. The AMD die is roughly 6.4 times smaller, yet it achieves nearly double the transistor density. The Intel chip's 100,000 million transistors represent about 3.37 times the AMD count of 29,700 million, but that count comes at the cost of a much larger physical footprint and a 300 W thermal design power.

Power requirements reflect the performance gap. The Intel card's 300 W thermal design power is more than three times the AMD card's 92 W. The suggested power supply scales accordingly: 700 W for Intel versus 250 W for AMD. The power connectors differ as well, with the AMD card using a single 8-pin connector and the Intel card using a single 12-pin connector. Both cards are dual-slot designs, and both use PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interfaces.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e memory. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Can the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 output video to a display?

A: No. The Intel card lists no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The AMD card includes 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a outputs.

Q: How much faster is the Intel card in FP32 compute?

A: The Intel card delivers 22.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD card delivers 10.65 TFLOPS. The Intel figure is approximately 2.09 times the AMD figure.

Q: What power supply does each card require?

A: The AMD card has a 92 W thermal design power and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The Intel card has a 300 W thermal design power and a suggested power supply of 700 W.

Q: Which architecture does each card use?

A: The AMD card uses RDNA 4.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process. The Intel card uses Generation 12.5 architecture on a 10 nm Intel process.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Intel card supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins in every category that measures raw compute and memory throughput. Its 22.22 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures are the highest recorded values in this comparison. Its 1.23 TB/s memory bandwidth, 48 GB capacity, and 8192-bit bus width are far beyond the AMD card's capabilities. The 694.4 GTexel/s texture rate and 7168 shading units make it suited for heavy parallel workloads, such as large-scale simulations or data processing. Its 56 ray tracing cores also exceed the AMD card's 16, though the lack of display outputs means those cores are not used for real-time graphics rendering on a screen.

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM wins in the categories that define a conventional graphics card. It is the only card with display outputs, offering HDMI 2.1b and two DisplayPort 2.1a connections. It has a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and 64 render output units, while the Intel card reports zero in both fields. The AMD card also operates at higher clock speeds: 2600 MHz boost versus 1550 MHz, and 1330 MHz base versus 1000 MHz. Its lower thermal design power of 92 W and suggested power supply of 250 W make it far easier to integrate into a standard desktop system. The AMD card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, features that the Intel card lacks.

The process node comparison also favors AMD. The 4 nm TSMC process used for the Navi 44 chip allows a 199 mm² die with 149.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel chip's 10 nm process and 1280 mm² die achieve only 78.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD card is physically smaller and more power-efficient per unit of die area, even though the Intel card has the higher absolute transistor count.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD card uses a Navi 44 chip with RDNA 4.0 architecture, while the Intel card uses a Ponte Vecchio chip with Generation 12.5 architecture. The process node is 4 nm for AMD and 10 nm for Intel. Transistor counts are 29,700 million for AMD and 100,000 million for Intel. Die size is 199 mm² for AMD and 1280 mm² for Intel. Transistor density is 149.2 million per square millimeter for AMD and 78.1 million per square millimeter for Intel.

Clock speeds differ across the board. AMD lists a 1330 MHz base, a 2600 MHz boost, a 1920 MHz game clock, and 2250 MHz memory (18 Gbps effective). Intel lists a 1000 MHz base, a 1550 MHz boost, no game clock, and 600 MHz memory (1200 Mbps effective). Memory capacity is 4 GB of GDDR6 for AMD and 48 GB of HBM2e for Intel. Bus width is 64 bit for AMD and 8192 bit for Intel. Bandwidth is 144.0 GB/s for AMD and 1.23 TB/s for Intel.

Compute resources show a similar divide. AMD has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 RT cores. Intel has 7168 shading units, 448 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 56 RT cores. Pixel rate is 166.4 GPixel/s for AMD and 0 MPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 166.4 GTexel/s for AMD and 694.4 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32 and FP16 are both 10.65 TFLOPS for AMD and 22.22 TFLOPS for Intel.

Power and physical attributes also diverge. Thermal design power is 92 W for AMD and 300 W for Intel. The AMD card uses a 1x 8-pin power connector, while the Intel card uses a 1x 12-pin connector. Suggested power supply is 250 W for AMD and 700 W for Intel. Both are dual-slot cards with PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces. The AMD card has display outputs, while the Intel card has none. The Intel card has a recorded length of 267 mm or 10.5 inches, while the AMD card lists no dimensions. API support shows AMD with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, versus Intel with DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan entry. The Intel card's successor is listed as H3C Graphics, while the AMD card's predecessor is Navi III. The Intel card released on 2023-01-09, while the AMD card's release date is 2026-07-27.