AMD FirePro W7000 vs Intel Arc A750 Comparison

The Intel Arc A750 and AMD FirePro W7000 represent two very different generations of graphics hardware, separated by a decade of architectural evolution. The data in this comparison shows a decisive overall winner, but the specific strengths and weaknesses of each card tell a more nuanced story for potential users. The Arc A750, built on Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture and a 6 nm process, delivers modern API support and raw compute power that dwarfs the older FirePro W7000, which relies on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture from the 28 nm era. While both cards are end-of-life products, their benchmark profiles reveal clear use-case scenarios where each might still be relevant.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Arc A750 wins every single head-to-head test recorded in the data. In the two available comparisons, the Arc A750 dominates both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL score for the Arc A750 is 98554, while the FirePro W7000 manages only 17808, resulting in a deltaPct of 453.4% in favor of the Intel card. This is not a marginal victory; it is a five-fold performance gap in raw compute throughput. Similarly, in Vulkan, the Arc A750 scores 85631 against the FirePro’s 22001, a deltaPct of 289.2%. The Arc A750 therefore wins all two head-to-head benchmarks, with the FirePro W7000 registering zero wins.

Where the FirePro W7000 might still hold a niche is in its form factor and power profile. The FirePro is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector, whereas the Arc A750 is dual-slot with a 225 W TDP and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. For systems with strict physical or power constraints, the FirePro’s smaller footprint and lower power draw are qualitative advantages that the benchmark scores do not capture. However, the FirePro’s 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth are dwarfed by the Arc A750’s 8 GB GDDR6 and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, making the Intel card far more capable for memory-intensive tasks. The FirePro also supports only DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Arc A750 offers DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which is a significant feature gap for modern gaming and compute workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to a single clear choice for almost any scenario: the Intel Arc A750. Its average benchmark score of 20582 places it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W7000’s average score of 19905 sits just slightly lower at the 65th percentile. The Arc A750’s nearest rivals include the Intel Arc B570 (avg score 20556, deltaPct 0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (avg score 20534, deltaPct 0.2%), showing that it competes with much newer and more powerful hardware. The FirePro W7000, by contrast, is closest to the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (avg score 19885, deltaPct 0.1%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (avg score 19765, deltaPct 0.7%), which are also far ahead of it in modern feature support.

For compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL or Vulkan rendering, the Arc A750 is the only rational selection given the data. Its FP32 performance of 17.20 TFLOPS versus the FirePro’s 2.432 TFLOPS is a 7x advantage, and its texture rate of 537.6 GTexel/s versus 76.00 GTexel/s further underscores the gap. The Arc A750 also has 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 112 ROPs, compared to the FirePro’s 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. For users who need a card for legacy compatibility or who have a single-slot, low-power requirement, the FirePro W7000 might still serve, but it offers no benchmark-based advantage over the Arc A750. The verdict is unambiguous: choose the Arc A750 unless physical or power constraints force the FirePro into consideration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data provides only two tests, but both show overwhelming wins for the Intel Arc A750. The most dramatic result is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Arc A750 scores 98554 versus the FirePro W7000’s 17808. This represents a deltaPct of 453.4%, meaning the Intel card is more than five times faster in this synthetic compute workload. OpenCL is often used for general-purpose GPU computing, and such a massive difference aligns with the underlying hardware: the Arc A750 has 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, fabricated on TSMC’s 6 nm process, while the FirePro has just 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die using 28 nm technology. The transistor density difference is stark: 53.4M per mm² for the Arc versus 13.2M per mm² for the FirePro.

The second head-to-head test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows the Arc A750 scoring 85631 against the FirePro’s 22001, a deltaPct of 289.2%. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics and compute API, and the Arc A750’s support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the FirePro’s Vulkan 1.2.170 gives it a feature-level advantage as well. The Arc A750’s memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s is more than three times the FirePro’s 153.6 GB/s, which directly impacts Vulkan’s ability to stream geometry and textures. Even in pixel throughput, the Arc A750’s 268.8 GPixel/s eclipses the FirePro’s 30.40 GPixel/s, a 8.8x gap. These numbers are not close, and the data shows no scenario where the FirePro closes the distance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A750 has an average benchmark score of 20582, while the AMD FirePro W7000 scores 19905, giving the Arc a slight edge in overall aggregate performance.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A750 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Arc B570?

A: The Arc A750’s average score is 20582, and the Arc B570 scores 20556, a deltaPct of 0.1% in favor of the A750. The difference is negligible, indicating near-identical aggregate performance.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc A750 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD FirePro W7000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W7000 support ray tracing?

A: No, the FirePro W7000 has no ray tracing cores listed in the data. The Intel Arc A750 includes 28 ray tracing cores as part of its specifications.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each card?

A: The Intel Arc A750 had a launch MSRP of 289 USD, while the AMD FirePro W7000 had a launch MSRP of 899 USD.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Intel Arc A750 has a transistor density of 53.4M per mm², compared to the AMD FirePro W7000’s 13.2M per mm², reflecting the newer 6 nm manufacturing process.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is vast. The Intel Arc A750 uses the DG2-512 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist generation, and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². The AMD FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture from the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It holds only 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, with a density of 13.2M per mm². The process node difference alone explains a substantial portion of the performance gap, as the 6 nm process allows nearly four times the transistor density.

Core configurations differ dramatically. The Arc A750 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, along with 28 dedicated ray tracing cores. The FirePro W7000 has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing support. This translates to an FP32 compute throughput of 17.20 TFLOPS for the Arc versus 2.432 TFLOPS for the FirePro. The Arc also supports FP16 at 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the FirePro has no listed FP16 capability. Pixel and texture rates follow the same trend: the Arc reaches 268.8 GPixel/s and 537.6 GTexel/s, while the FirePro achieves just 30.40 GPixel/s and 76.00 GTexel/s.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The Arc A750 offers 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The FirePro W7000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). API support also favors the Arc: it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Arc’s PCIe 4.0 x16 interface doubles the bandwidth of the FirePro’s PCIe 3.0 x16. Physically, the Arc is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP and requires a 550 W PSU, while the FirePro is single-slot with a 150 W TDP and a 450 W PSU recommendation. The FirePro’s 242 mm length and 111 mm height make it easier to fit in compact chassis, but the Arc’s superior specifications and benchmark results make it the clear architectural winner.