inference/research
contestedhigh · 0.85updated 2026-10-05

Intel Data Center GPU Flex 170

intel alchemist (Xe-HPG, ACM-G11) 2022

Fields

id
accelerators/xpu-intel-dc-gpu-flex-170
Vendor
intel
Architecture
alchemist (Xe-HPG, ACM-G11)
Release year
2022
Process (nm)
7
Form factors
pcie
VRAM (GB)
16
Memory type
gddr6
Memory bus (bit)
256
Memory bandwidth (GB/s)
576
Bandwidth basis
Intel ARK Flex 170 spec table, retrieved 2026-10-04: 'Memory Size 16 GB' | 'Memory Type GDDR6' | 'Graphics Memory Interface 256 bit' | 'Graphics Memory Bandwidth 576 GB/s'. Bandwidth is ARK's own figure, not derived.
Peak FLOPS
precisionfp16tflops80denseyesvendor_claimnosource_id—basisunverifiedbasis_detailCITATION WITHDRAWN 2026-10-05 - THE CITED DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO SUCH FIGURE. This row cited xpu-onednn-github-readme (the oneDNN README) on the strength of that README naming 'Intel Data Center GPU Flex Series' and 'Intel Data Center GPU Max Series' in its list of optimised GPUs. I fetched the RAW README (raw.githubusercontent.com/oneapi-src/oneDNN/master/README.md, 22,267 characters) rather than the rendered GitHub page, because the rendered page is what produced the false positive in the first place. A substring sweep over the full raw text returns ZERO occurrences of any of this record's values - '409', '819', '160', '80', '20' and '52' are all absent as figures. The GPU section of that README is a bulleted list of supported architectures with no numbers at all, and the only '52' in the document sits inside a Base64-encoded camo.githubusercontent.com image URL in the OpenSSF Scorecard badge. This number is therefore supported by NOTHING in the record's source set. vendor_claim is now false and basis 'unverified' rather than 'vendor-docs', because 'vendor-docs' asserted an Intel publication that does not contain the figure. source_id is null so the record stops asserting the false link, and the value is left in place rather than deleted: the record is already status contested with the disagreement documented, and an open contested row with its reason recorded is more useful than a deletion that reads as a settled question. Treat this number as unsupported. See w5a-part2-onednn-readme-contains-no-tflops-figure.precisionint8tflops160denseyesvendor_claimnosource_id—basisunverifiedbasis_detailCITATION WITHDRAWN 2026-10-05 - THE CITED DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO SUCH FIGURE. This row cited xpu-onednn-github-readme (the oneDNN README) on the strength of that README naming 'Intel Data Center GPU Flex Series' and 'Intel Data Center GPU Max Series' in its list of optimised GPUs. I fetched the RAW README (raw.githubusercontent.com/oneapi-src/oneDNN/master/README.md, 22,267 characters) rather than the rendered GitHub page, because the rendered page is what produced the false positive in the first place. A substring sweep over the full raw text returns ZERO occurrences of any of this record's values - '409', '819', '160', '80', '20' and '52' are all absent as figures. The GPU section of that README is a bulleted list of supported architectures with no numbers at all, and the only '52' in the document sits inside a Base64-encoded camo.githubusercontent.com image URL in the OpenSSF Scorecard badge. This number is therefore supported by NOTHING in the record's source set. vendor_claim is now false and basis 'unverified' rather than 'vendor-docs', because 'vendor-docs' asserted an Intel publication that does not contain the figure. source_id is null so the record stops asserting the false link, and the value is left in place rather than deleted: the record is already status contested with the disagreement documented, and an open contested row with its reason recorded is more useful than a deletion that reads as a settled question. Treat this number as unsupported. See w5a-part2-onednn-readme-contains-no-tflops-figure.precisionfp32tflops20denseyesvendor_claimnosource_id—basisunverifiedbasis_detailCITATION WITHDRAWN 2026-10-05 - THE CITED DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO SUCH FIGURE. This row cited xpu-onednn-github-readme (the oneDNN README) on the strength of that README naming 'Intel Data Center GPU Flex Series' and 'Intel Data Center GPU Max Series' in its list of optimised GPUs. I fetched the RAW README (raw.githubusercontent.com/oneapi-src/oneDNN/master/README.md, 22,267 characters) rather than the rendered GitHub page, because the rendered page is what produced the false positive in the first place. A substring sweep over the full raw text returns ZERO occurrences of any of this record's values - '409', '819', '160', '80', '20' and '52' are all absent as figures. The GPU section of that README is a bulleted list of supported architectures with no numbers at all, and the only '52' in the document sits inside a Base64-encoded camo.githubusercontent.com image URL in the OpenSSF Scorecard badge. This number is therefore supported by NOTHING in the record's source set. vendor_claim is now false and basis 'unverified' rather than 'vendor-docs', because 'vendor-docs' asserted an Intel publication that does not contain the figure. source_id is null so the record stops asserting the false link, and the value is left in place rather than deleted: the record is already status contested with the disagreement documented, and an open contested row with its reason recorded is more useful than a deletion that reads as a settled question. Treat this number as unsupported. See w5a-part2-onednn-readme-contains-no-tflops-figure.
TDP (W)
150
Unified memory
no
Consumer part
no
notes
COLUMN-MIXING ERROR, CORRECTED 2026-10-05. This record previously carried tdp_w 75, memory_bandwidth_gbps 384 and memory_bus_bit 128. All three are the Flex 140's figures; this record is the Flex 170. Intel's own ARK page for the 170 prints 'Memory Size 16 GB' | 'Memory Type GDDR6' | 'Graphics Memory Interface 256 bit' | 'Graphics Memory Bandwidth 576 GB/s' | 'TBP 150 W'. The 384 GB/s and 128-bit were never printed by Intel for either part - 384 is the 140's bandwidth and the 128-bit was an INFERENCE from GDDR6, which ARK contradicts at 256 bit. STATUS CONTESTED because the flops rows are still not reconcilable with any Intel publication. ARK publishes no compute figure for this part at all - no TFLOPS row, no TOPS row. The stored fp32 20 / fp16 80 / int8 160 match neither the 170 nor the 140. The Flex Series product brief gives the 170 as '16 TFLOPS (FP32) / 250 TOPS (INT8)', which is a different pair again. Rather than pick a figure no source supports, the rows are kept and the disagreement is stated. A reader should not plan on these three numbers. SPARSITY: ARK carries no sparsity footnote and no row titled for one on this part, so every published figure is dense as printed and must not be halved - Intel's convention in its strongest form, where there is no sparse row to find. CITATION WITHDRAWN 2026-10-05, THE MOST IMPORTANT CORRECTION IN THIS RECORD: every flops row here cited xpu-onednn-github-readme, and that document contains NONE of these figures. Verified by reading the raw README rather than the rendered GitHub page - the rendered page is what made a citation of this kind look reasonable in the first place. The README's GPU section is an unnumbered bulleted list of supported architectures ('Intel Data Center GPU Flex Series (formerly Arctic Sound)', 'Intel Data Center GPU Max Series (formerly Ponte Vecchio)'). It is arguably the single most plausible-looking citation an Intel GPU's compute figure could carry: same vendor ecosystem, same product-family names, machine-readable, and already present in the record's sources list. That is what makes it the worst kind of error in this repo - a citation that does not support the number, disguised as a first-party Intel document. The rows now carry basis 'unverified', vendor_claim false and source_id null, and the values stay in place under status contested so the disagreement remains open and visible rather than being deleted into a silence that looks like a settled question. WHAT WOULD SETTLE IT: Intel ARK. Prior passes established that ARK publishes no compute row for either part (w4h-intel-dc-gpu-flex-170-ark-spec-table, w4h-intel-dc-gpu-max-1550-ark-spec-table), and the Flex Series product brief gives the 170 as '16 TFLOPS (FP32) / 250 TOPS (INT8)' - a third pair, matching neither. So as of this pass there is NO Intel-published compute figure for this part and a reader should not plan on these numbers. See w5a-part2-onednn-readme-contains-no-tflops-figure.

Notes

COLUMN-MIXING ERROR, CORRECTED 2026-10-05. This record previously carried tdp_w 75, memory_bandwidth_gbps 384 and memory_bus_bit 128. All three are the Flex 140's figures; this record is the Flex 170. Intel's own ARK page for the 170 prints 'Memory Size 16 GB' | 'Memory Type GDDR6' | 'Graphics Memory Interface 256 bit' | 'Graphics Memory Bandwidth 576 GB/s' | 'TBP 150 W'. The 384 GB/s and 128-bit were never printed by Intel for either part - 384 is the 140's bandwidth and the 128-bit was an INFERENCE from GDDR6, which ARK contradicts at 256 bit.

STATUS CONTESTED because the flops rows are still not reconcilable with any Intel publication. ARK publishes no compute figure for this part at all - no TFLOPS row, no TOPS row. The stored fp32 20 / fp16 80 / int8 160 match neither the 170 nor the 140. The Flex Series product brief gives the 170 as '16 TFLOPS (FP32) / 250 TOPS (INT8)', which is a different pair again. Rather than pick a figure no source supports, the rows are kept and the disagreement is stated. A reader should not plan on these three numbers.

SPARSITY: ARK carries no sparsity footnote and no row titled for one on this part, so every published figure is dense as printed and must not be halved - Intel's convention in its strongest form, where there is no sparse row to find.

CITATION WITHDRAWN 2026-10-05, THE MOST IMPORTANT CORRECTION IN THIS RECORD: every flops row here cited xpu-onednn-github-readme, and that document contains NONE of these figures. Verified by reading the raw README rather than the rendered GitHub page - the rendered page is what made a citation of this kind look reasonable in the first place. The README's GPU section is an unnumbered bulleted list of supported architectures ('Intel Data Center GPU Flex Series (formerly Arctic Sound)', 'Intel Data Center GPU Max Series (formerly Ponte Vecchio)'). It is arguably the single most plausible-looking citation an Intel GPU's compute figure could carry: same vendor ecosystem, same product-family names, machine-readable, and already present in the record's sources list. That is what makes it the worst kind of error in this repo - a citation that does not support the number, disguised as a first-party Intel document. The rows now carry basis 'unverified', vendor_claim false and source_id null, and the values stay in place under status contested so the disagreement remains open and visible rather than being deleted into a silence that looks like a settled question. WHAT WOULD SETTLE IT: Intel ARK. Prior passes established that ARK publishes no compute row for either part (w4h-intel-dc-gpu-flex-170-ark-spec-table, w4h-intel-dc-gpu-max-1550-ark-spec-table), and the Flex Series product brief gives the 170 as '16 TFLOPS (FP32) / 250 TOPS (INT8)' - a third pair, matching neither. So as of this pass there is NO Intel-published compute figure for this part and a reader should not plan on these numbers. See w5a-part2-onednn-readme-contains-no-tflops-figure.

Cross-references