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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon RX 9050 or the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100. Both products hold identical percentile standings against all GPUs, each sitting at the 50th percentile, with an average benchmark score of zero in both cases. Consequently, there are no head-to-head measurement results to compare, no win counts assigned to either product, and no nearest rival data available for either card. The absence of scored benchmarks means that performance comparisons must be drawn from the architectural and specification data recorded for each accelerator rather than from empirical test results.

The lack of benchmark data is notable given the substantial differences in raw compute capacity between the two. The Intel part records a peak FP32 throughput of 22.22 TFLOPS, while the AMD card records 10.65 TFLOPS, indicating that the Intel accelerator has approximately twice the single-precision floating-point throughput on paper. Similarly, FP16 performance follows the same ratio, with the Intel card recording 22.22 TFLOPS against the AMD card's 10.65 TFLOPS, both operating at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 figures. The texture fill rate also favors the Intel part, which records 694.4 GTexel/s compared to 166.4 GTexel/s for the AMD card, a difference of more than a factor of four. The AMD card does record a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s, while the Intel card records a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, reflecting the latter's lack of traditional ROP output capabilities.

Without measured benchmark outcomes, the database only supports a theoretical comparison based on these recorded specifications, and the data does not indicate which product would win in any given workload. The specification sheet shows clear advantages for the Intel accelerator in raw computational throughput, but the AMD card has a substantial advantage in pixel output, which typically matters for rasterized graphics workloads. The recorded data provides no basis for declaring a winner, as no benchmark scores exist to confirm or contradict the theoretical implications of the hardware specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different manufacturers and different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 belongs to the Radeon RX 9000 series, uses the Navi 44 chip, and is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture. Its generation is recorded as Navi IV (RX 9000), and it is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip, belongs to the Generation 12.5 architecture, and is listed under the Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) generation. Intel fabricates this chip on a 10 nm process at its own foundry.

The transistor counts differ enormously. The AMD chip contains 29,700 million transistors on a die size of 199 mm², yielding a transistor density of 149.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel chip contains 100,000 million transistors on a die size of 1280 mm², with a transistor density of 78.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel die is more than six times larger in area, and it packs over three times the total transistor count, but the AMD process achieves nearly double the transistor density due to its smaller process node.

Clock speeds also diverge. The AMD card records a base clock of 1330 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz, with a game clock of 1920 MHz. The Intel card records a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1550 MHz, with no game clock listed. The memory clocks differ as well: the AMD card operates its GDDR6 memory at 2250 MHz, which the database records as 18 Gbps effective, while the Intel card operates its HBM2e memory at 600 MHz, recorded as 1200 Mbps effective.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel card has 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus, providing 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth. The bus width difference is extreme: the Intel memory bus is 64 times wider. The Intel card also has a far larger memory capacity, six times that of the AMD card.

Compute unit configurations differ as well. The AMD card has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 16 ray tracing cores. The Intel card has 7168 shading units and 448 texture mapping units, but records zero render output units. The Intel card records 56 ray tracing cores. The AMD card has no tensor cores recorded, and the Intel card also has no tensor cores recorded.

The power and physical specifications show a stark contrast. The AMD card has a TDP of 92 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 250 W. The Intel card has a TDP of 300 W and requires a single 12-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 700 W. Both cards are dual-slot designs, and both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

Display output capabilities differ completely. The AMD card provides one HDMI 2.1b output and two DisplayPort 2.1a outputs. The Intel card provides no display outputs at all, reflecting its data center orientation. The API support also differs: the AMD card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher peak FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 records 22.22 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon RX 9050 records 10.65 TFLOPS FP32, giving the Intel card roughly double the single-precision throughput.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types of the two cards?

A: The AMD card uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card uses 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a lower feature level.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD card, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process, has a transistor density of 149.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel card, on a 10 nm Intel process, has a density of 78.1 million transistors per square millimeter.

Q: Can the Intel card drive displays?

A: No. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 records no display outputs, whereas the AMD Radeon RX 9050 provides one HDMI 2.1b and two DisplayPort 2.1a outputs.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The AMD card has a TDP of 92 W and a suggested power supply of 250 W, using one 8-pin connector. The Intel card has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested power supply of 700 W, using one 12-pin connector.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification category.

The process node differs: the AMD card uses 4 nm TSMC fabrication, while the Intel card uses 10 nm Intel fabrication. Transistor counts are 29,700 million for AMD versus 100,000 million for Intel. Die size is 199 mm² for AMD versus 1280 mm² for Intel. Transistor density is 149.2 million per mm² for AMD versus 78.1 million per mm² for Intel.

Base clock speeds: 1330 MHz for AMD versus 1000 MHz for Intel. Boost clock speeds: 2600 MHz for AMD versus 1550 MHz for Intel. The AMD card has a game clock of 1920 MHz; the Intel card has no game clock. Memory clock: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective) for Intel.

Memory size: 8 GB for AMD versus 48 GB for Intel. Memory type: GDDR6 for AMD versus HBM2e for Intel. Memory bus width: 128 bit for AMD versus 8192 bit for Intel. Memory bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s for AMD versus 1.23 TB/s for Intel.

Shading units: 1024 for AMD versus 7168 for Intel. Texture mapping units: 64 for AMD versus 448 for Intel. Render output units: 64 for AMD versus 0 for Intel. Ray tracing cores: 16 for AMD versus 56 for Intel.

Pixel rate: 166.4 GPixel/s for AMD versus 0 MPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate: 166.4 GTexel/s for AMD versus 694.4 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32 and FP16 performance: 10.65 TFLOPS for AMD versus 22.22 TFLOPS for Intel, both at 1:1 ratios.

TDP: 92 W for AMD versus 300 W for Intel. Power connectors: one 8-pin for AMD versus one 12-pin for Intel. Suggested power supply: 250 W for AMD versus 700 W for Intel.

Display outputs: one HDMI 2.1b and two DisplayPort 2.1a for AMD versus no outputs for Intel.

DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) for AMD versus 12 (12_1) for Intel. Vulkan support: 1.4 for AMD versus none recorded for Intel. OpenGL support is the same at 4.6 for both.

The Intel card has a recorded length of 267 mm (10.5 inches), while no dimensions are recorded for the AMD card.

Release dates differ: the AMD card was released on 2026-07-27, while the Intel card was released on 2023-01-09. The AMD card lists its predecessor as Navi III, with no successor recorded. The Intel card lists no predecessor and its successor as H3C Graphics.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two accelerators with fundamentally different design goals. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 is a compact, low-power graphics card with display outputs and modern API support, built on a dense 4 nm process. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is a large, high-power compute accelerator with massive memory capacity and bandwidth, but no display outputs and a lower DirectX feature level.

On raw compute specifications, the Intel card dominates. Its FP32 throughput of 22.22 TFLOPS is more than double the AMD card's 10.65 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 694.4 GTexel/s is over four times the AMD card's 166.4 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 1.23 TB/s is over four times the AMD card's 288.0 GB/s, and its 48 GB memory capacity is six times larger.

On graphics-specific specifications, the AMD card has clear advantages. It records 64 render output units and a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s, whereas the Intel card records zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The AMD card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel card only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and lacks Vulkan entirely. The AMD card provides display outputs; the Intel card provides none.

The power envelope differs sharply. The AMD card operates at 92 W TDP with a 250 W suggested power supply, while the Intel card operates at 300 W TDP with a 700 W suggested power supply. The AMD card uses a single 8-pin connector, and the Intel card uses a single 12-pin connector.

Neither product has recorded benchmark scores, so the verdict must rest on the specification data alone. The database shows the Intel card as a high-throughput compute accelerator suited for workloads where memory capacity and FP32 throughput are the primary considerations. The AMD card appears as a graphics-oriented part with display capability, rasterization output, and current-generation API support, at a fraction of the power draw. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload requires compute density or graphics output, and the recorded specifications support each card in its respective domain.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 wins in scenarios that require display output. It provides one HDMI 2.1b and two DisplayPort 2.1a connections, while the Intel card provides no outputs. Any workload that ends in rendering to a screen requires the AMD card.

The AMD card wins on rasterization throughput. Its 64 render output units and 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate give it a functional pixel output capability, whereas the Intel card records zero ROPs and zero pixel rate. Traditional rasterized graphics workloads rely on pixel output, and the AMD card is the only one of the two with that capability.

The AMD card wins on API currency. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 support place it ahead of the Intel card's DirectX 12 (12_1) and absent Vulkan support. Applications built around modern graphics APIs will run with fuller feature sets on the AMD card.

The AMD card wins on power efficiency. Its 92 W TDP and 250 W suggested power supply are substantially lower than the Intel card's 300 W TDP and 700 W suggested power supply. Systems with limited power budgets favor the AMD card.

The AMD card wins on process density. Its 4 nm fabrication and 149.2 million transistors per square millimeter density exceed the Intel card's 10 nm process and 78.1 million per square millimeter, indicating a more modern manufacturing approach.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins on raw compute throughput. Its 22.22 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures double the AMD card's 10.65 TFLOPS. Compute-heavy workloads such as large-scale simulation or scientific processing see a theoretical advantage on the Intel card.

The Intel card wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 48 GB HBM2e pool and 1.23 TB/s bandwidth dwarf the AMD card's 8 GB GDDR6 and 288.0 GB/s. Workloads that hold large datasets in video memory benefit from the Intel card's capacity and throughput.

The Intel card wins on texture processing. Its 448 texture mapping units and 694.4 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the AMD card's 64 TMUs and 166.4 GTexel/s. Texture-heavy compute tasks have a theoretical edge on the Intel card.

The Intel card wins on ray tracing core count. Its 56 ray tracing cores outnumber the AMD card's 16, though no benchmark data confirms the practical impact.

The Intel card wins on shading unit count. Its 7168 shading units are seven times the AMD card's 1024, indicating a larger parallel execution capacity.

The Intel card also has a longer recorded physical length of 267 mm (10.5 inches), while no dimensions are recorded for the AMD card, suggesting the Intel card occupies more space in a chassis.