AMD FirePro S7150 vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner: the AMD FirePro S7150 outperforms the Intel Arc A350M in both recorded compute tests. The FirePro S7150 takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 26,543 against the Arc A350M’s 24,546, a lead of 8.1%. The margin grows substantially in the Vulkan test, where the FirePro S7150 scores 29,690 versus 24,747 for the Arc A350M, a 20% advantage. These are not marginal differences; the FirePro S7150 is decisively ahead in both application programming interfaces tested.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro S7150’s average benchmark score of 28,117 places it at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (average score 28,020, just 0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (27,973, 0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M (27,883, 0.8% behind). The FirePro S7150 sits comfortably within this cluster, effectively trading blows with those desktop and workstation parts.

The Intel Arc A350M, by contrast, records an average benchmark score of 24,647, placing it at the 70th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744, just 0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763, 0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442, 0.8% behind). The Arc A350M is therefore a mid-pack mobile part, hovering around the same performance tier as older desktop cards like the RX 590, but it does not reach the FirePro S7150’s level.

The head-to-head delta of 8.1% in OpenCL and 20% in Vulkan is consistent with the raw score gaps. In OpenCL, the difference is moderate but real; in Vulkan, the FirePro S7150’s advantage is substantial. For any workload that relies on Vulkan compute, the FirePro S7150 is the clear choice based on these measurements. The Arc A350M does not win either test, and its best showing is a closer OpenCL result, but it still trails by a meaningful margin.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro S7150 wins both benchmark categories, so the use-case split is straightforward. In OpenCL workloads, which often include general-purpose GPU computing, scientific simulations, and certain rendering tasks, the FirePro S7150 leads by 8.1%. That advantage is not enormous, but it is consistent. In Vulkan workloads, which are increasingly common in modern game engines and compute applications, the FirePro S7150 is 20% ahead, a significant gap that would translate into noticeably faster execution times.

The Intel Arc A350M does not win any recorded benchmark, but it does have strengths that are not captured in these two compute tests. Its architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro S7150 only supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. For applications that require the latest API features, such as mesh shaders or ray tracing (the Arc A350M has 6 ray tracing cores), the Intel part is the more modern choice. Additionally, the Arc A350M is a mobile integrated GPU with a 25 W TDP, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the FirePro S7150, a 150 W single-slot server card, cannot physically be installed.

So, the FirePro S7150 wins on raw compute performance in both tested APIs. The Arc A350M wins on feature set, power efficiency, and portability, but the data does not show any performance win for Intel in these benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design philosophies and process nodes. The AMD FirePro S7150 is built on the Tonga chip using the GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.7 million per mm². The Intel Arc A350M uses the DG2-128 chip with the Xe-HPG architecture, also fabricated by TSMC, but on a much smaller 6 nm node. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm², more than three times the density of the FirePro S7150.

The FirePro S7150 relies on a wider memory interface: 256 bit with 8 GB of GDDR5 running at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A350M uses a narrow 64 bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), producing 112.0 GB/s. Despite the newer memory type, the Arc A350M has 30% less bandwidth, which contributes to its lower compute scores. The FirePro S7150 also has far more shading units (2,048 versus 768), more texture mapping units (128 versus 48), and more render output units (32 versus 24). These raw resource counts explain the FirePro’s higher pixel rate (29.44 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s, actually the Arc is higher here) and texture rate (117.8 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s, the FirePro is higher here). Note that the Arc A350M wins on pixel rate, 52.80 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s for the FirePro, because its boost clock is much higher: 2200 MHz versus no recorded base or boost clock for the FirePro.

In terms of compute throughput, the FirePro S7150 delivers 3.768 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.537 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The Arc A350M delivers 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.758 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The FirePro S7150 leads by roughly 11.5% in FP32 and FP16, which aligns with its benchmark victories. The Arc A350M counters with 6 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the FirePro S7150. The FirePro S7150 supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc A350M supports PCIe 4.0 x8, so the bandwidth interface differs as well. The FirePro S7150 has no display outputs, being a server card, while the Arc A350M’s outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop implementation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S7150 has an average benchmark score of 28,117, which is higher than the Intel Arc A350M’s 24,647. The FirePro S7150 sits at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A350M is at the 70th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan compute?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the AMD FirePro S7150 scores 29,690 versus 24,747 for the Intel Arc A350M, a 20% advantage. This is the largest delta between the two in any recorded benchmark.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A350M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A350M includes 6 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The AMD FirePro S7150 has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro S7150 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus, with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm², compared to 13.7 million per mm² for the AMD FirePro S7150. The Arc A350M uses a 6 nm process, while the FirePro S7150 uses 28 nm.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD FirePro S7150 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 450 W suggested PSU plus a 1x 6-pin power connector. The Intel Arc A350M has a TDP of 25 W and is an integrated GPU with no separate power connectors or suggested PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro S7150 | Intel Arc A350M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 366 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.7M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 1150 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 768 |

| TMUs | 128 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.44 GPixel/s | 52.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 117.8 GTexel/s | 105.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.768 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.537 TFLOPS (2:1) | 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 25 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2016-01-31 | 2022-03-29 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,399 USD | None recorded |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for compute performance: the AMD FirePro S7150 is the stronger GPU. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, leads by 8.1% in OpenCL and 20% in Vulkan, and holds a higher average score (28,117 versus 24,647) and a higher percentile rank (73rd versus 70th). Its FP32 throughput of 3.768 TFLOPS exceeds the Arc A350M’s 3.379 TFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s is 30% higher. Anyone selecting a GPU for OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks should choose the FirePro S7150, provided the system can accommodate a 150 W, single-slot, 241 mm card with no display outputs.

The Intel Arc A350M is the right choice in a different context. Its 25 W TDP and integrated form factor make it the only option here for portable devices. It also supports modern features that the FirePro S7150 lacks: 6 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc A350M’s higher boost clock (2200 MHz) gives it a superior pixel rate (52.80 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s), which could benefit rasterization-heavy tasks, though its lower texture rate (105.6 GTexel/s versus 117.8 GTexel/s) and lower FP32 mean it still trails in raw compute. For a laptop user who needs the latest API features and ray tracing, the Arc A350M is the only viable pick from this pair. For any server or workstation workload where compute performance is the priority, the FirePro S7150 is the clear winner based on every recorded benchmark.