AMD FirePro W600 vs Intel Arc A310 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the Intel Arc A310 is the far stronger compute and graphics part in almost every measurable way, while the AMD FirePro W600 is defined by its age and limited driver feature set. For anyone building a system today with a need for modern API support, ray tracing hardware, or even modest 3D acceleration, the Arc A310 is the only sensible pick from these two. The FirePro W600, with its 2012-era GCN 1.0 architecture and only a single recorded benchmark score, should be considered only for legacy software compatibility or very specific multi-display setups where its six mini-DisplayPort outputs matter more than raw performance.

The average benchmark score gap is decisive: the Arc A310 averages 7550 across all recorded tests, while the FirePro W600 averages 6223. That is a 21.3% overall advantage for the Intel part, and the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the Arc A310 at 30607 versus 6223, a 391.8% lead. The FirePro W600 does have one structural advantage: it offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs versus the Arc's four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. If a workstation needs to drive six monitors from a single slot without extra hardware, the FirePro W600 is the only option here. Otherwise, the Arc A310 wins on every performance metric, API support, and power efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design eras. The Arc A310 uses Intel's Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-128 chip, built on TSMC's 6 nm process. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W600 uses AMD's older GCN 1.0 architecture on the Cape Verde chip, built on TSMC's 28 nm process. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a transistor density of just 12.2 million per square millimeter. The process node difference alone explains much of the performance and efficiency gap.

Core configuration also differs sharply. The Arc A310 has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 raster output units, and 6 dedicated ray tracing cores. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores at all. The Intel part also has a much higher pixel rate at 28.00 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 56.00 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.688 TFLOPS for the Arc versus 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro, a 3.5x gap in raw shader throughput. The Arc also supports FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the FirePro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The Arc A310 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, achieving 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving only 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Despite having half the bus width, the Arc's faster GDDR6 memory at 15.5 Gbps effective versus 4 Gbps effective gives it nearly double the bandwidth. The Arc also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. API support favors Intel heavily: the Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Arc's DirectX 12 Ultimate support includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading that the FirePro cannot use at all.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 wins in every benchmark category where both have recorded data, and in most features. In the only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc leads by 391.8%. Beyond that, the Arc has recorded scores across nine different tests: Geekbench OpenCL at 30607, Geekbench Vulkan at 28964, Passmark DirectX 10 at 31, DirectX 11 at 33, DirectX 12 at 29, DirectX 9 at 69, G2D at 625, G3D at 5433, and GPU Compute at 2157. The FirePro W600 has only one recorded benchmark score, Geekbench OpenCL at 6223. This means the Arc wins on compute, on 3D graphics in every DirectX version, on 2D performance, and on general GPU compute workloads. Its 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs versus the FirePro's 36th percentile confirms it sits higher in the overall performance distribution.

The FirePro W600's only clear win is in display output count. It has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Arc A310 has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. For a financial trading floor, video wall, or any setup that needs more than four native display outputs from a single card, the FirePro is the only one that can do it without daisy-chaining or additional hardware. Its shorter length of 168 mm (6.6 inches) versus the Arc's unspecified dimensions may also help in compact chassis, but the Arc's 30 W TDP versus the FirePro's 75 W TDP means the Intel part is far easier to cool and power. The FirePro's suggested PSU of 250 W versus the Arc's 200 W reinforces that the Arc is the more efficient card.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute workloads?

A: The Intel Arc A310 is dramatically faster. In the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc scores 30607 versus the FirePro W600's 6223, a 391.8% advantage. The Arc also has 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 compute versus 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro.

Q: Does the FirePro W600 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro W600 has no ray tracing cores, while the Arc A310 has 6 dedicated RT cores. The Intel card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which includes ray tracing features, while the FirePro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: Which card can drive more monitors?

A: The FirePro W600 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Arc A310 has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. If six native display outputs are required, the FirePro is the only option between these two.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the Arc has nearly double the bandwidth due to faster memory clocks.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The Arc A310 has a 30 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Arc also uses a 6 nm process versus 28 nm, which explains much of the efficiency difference.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Arc A310 was released on 2022-10-11, and the FirePro W600 was released on 2012-06-12.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The Intel Arc A310 scores 30607, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223. That is a 391.8% lead for the Intel part, which means the Arc delivers roughly five times the OpenCL compute performance of the FirePro. This is not a close contest by any measure. In the database's overall average benchmark score, the Arc A310 sits at 7550, while the FirePro W600 sits at 6223, a 21.3% gap that understates the true performance difference because the FirePro only has a single test recorded.

The Arc A310's nearest rivals in the database give context to its standing. It sits within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, and is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon R7 250 and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100. The FirePro W600's nearest rivals tell a different story: it is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6950, but 0.7% behind both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, and 0.9% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K620. The FirePro's percentile rank of 36 versus the Arc's 40 confirms the Intel part is positioned higher in the overall GPU performance distribution.

The Arc A310 also wins on every recorded graphics API test. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 69, DirectX 10 score of 31, DirectX 11 score of 33, and DirectX 12 score of 29 all represent measurable 3D performance. The FirePro W600 has no recorded scores in any of these tests, so its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is nominal rather than demonstrated. The Arc's Passmark G3D score of 5433 and GPU Compute score of 2157 further reinforce its superiority, while its G2D score of 625 indicates solid 2D acceleration as well. The FirePro W600's sole recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL at 6223, is the only data point it offers, and that single point is far below every Arc result.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The Arc A310 uses the DG2-128 chip with Xe-HPG architecture, while the FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture. The process node is 6 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for AMD. Transistor count is 7,200 million versus 1,500 million, and die size is 157 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 45.9 million per mm² versus 12.2 million per mm².

Clock speeds are not directly comparable because the FirePro W600 has no recorded base or boost clock. The Arc A310 runs at 1750 MHz base and boost, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The FirePro's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Memory size is 4 GB GDDR6 for the Arc versus 2 GB GDDR5 for the FirePro. Bus width is 64-bit versus 128-bit, but bandwidth is 124.0 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

The Arc A310 has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no RT cores. Pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.688 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS. The Arc supports FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS, while the FirePro has no FP16 data.

TDP is 30 W for the Arc versus 75 W for the FirePro. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, but the Arc suggests a 200 W PSU versus 250 W for the FirePro. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Arc versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 for the Arc versus 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the FirePro. The FirePro has recorded dimensions of 168 mm length, 111 mm height, and 20 mm width, while the Arc has no recorded dimensions. API support favors Intel: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 for both, and Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro W600 had a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the Arc A310 has no recorded launch MSRP.