DEPLOYDatabase

Chip comparison

AMD Instinct MI250X vs Cambricon MLU370-X8

Side-by-side specs

Straight from each vendor's datasheet. Winner in bold: higher throughput, memory, or transistor count; lower power draw or price. Sparse (2:4) throughput roughly doubles the FP8/INT8 numbers shown.

FieldAMD Instinct MI250XCambricon MLU370-X8
Process nodeTSMC N6TSMC N7
TDP560 W250 W
Memory128 GB HBM2e48 GB LPDDR5
Memory bandwidth3,200 GB/s—
FP16 (dense)383 TFLOPS96 TFLOPS
BF16 (dense)383 TFLOPS—
INT8 (dense)383 TOPS256 TOPS
Form factorOAMPCIe
Announced2021-11-082022-03-25
Released2022-06-01—

Robots running AMD Instinct MI250X

No robots publicly running it yet.

Robots running Cambricon MLU370-X8

No robots publicly running it yet.

Data centers with AMD Instinct MI250X

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Data centers with Cambricon MLU370-X8

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Common questions

AMD Instinct MI250X vs Cambricon MLU370-X8: which is faster for training?

AMD Instinct MI250X has 3.99x the dense FP16/BF16 throughput of the other (AMD Instinct MI250X: 383 TFLOPS; Cambricon MLU370-X8: 96 TFLOPS). Real-world training speed also depends on memory bandwidth, interconnect, and software stack: see the spec diff for those inputs.

AMD Instinct MI250X vs Cambricon MLU370-X8: which has more memory?

AMD Instinct MI250X carries more HBM (AMD Instinct MI250X: 128 GB HBM2e; Cambricon MLU370-X8: 48 GB LPDDR5). Memory capacity sets the largest model that fits on one chip without partitioning; memory bandwidth sets inference throughput.

AMD Instinct MI250X vs Cambricon MLU370-X8: which is more power-efficient?

Dense FP16/BF16 TFLOPS per watt: AMD Instinct MI250X 0.68 (383 ÷ 560 W); Cambricon MLU370-X8 0.38 (96 ÷ 250 W). AMD Instinct MI250X wins at the die level; system-level efficiency also depends on cooling and interconnect.

See also: every chip comparison · AMD Instinct MI250X full page · Cambricon MLU370-X8 full page.