AMD FirePro W7100 vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W7100 and Intel Arc A350M represent two distinct eras of GPU design, yet their aggregate benchmark scores place them in a surprisingly close contest. The FirePro W7100, a professional workstation card from 2014, and the Arc A350M, a 2022 mobile integrated graphics processor, are separated by a mere 1.5 points in their average benchmark scores (25856 vs 24647). This translates to a percentile ranking of 71 for the AMD part versus 70 for the Intel part, indicating that the data places them in essentially the same performance tier despite their vastly different origins and specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head benchmark victories, with each winning one test. The Intel Arc A350M takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 24546, narrowly edging out the AMD FirePro W7100's 24182. This represents a 1.5% advantage for the Intel part in this compute-oriented workload. The margin is small, suggesting that the architectural advantages of the Arc A350M in this test are not overwhelming, but the result is a clear win for the newer silicon.

The AMD FirePro W7100 delivers a decisive response in the Geekbench Vulkan test. It scores 27529, which is 11.2% higher than the Intel Arc A350M's 24747. This is a substantial margin and indicates that the FirePro W7100's GCN 3.0 architecture handles the Vulkan API workload significantly better than Intel's Xe-HPG architecture in this specific benchmark. The 11.2% delta is a major point in the AMD card's favor, demonstrating that its older design is not obsolete in all scenarios.

When examining the broader competitive landscape, the average benchmark scores reveal how each GPU sits among its peers. The FirePro W7100's average score of 25856 places it in close company with the AMD FirePro D700 (25842), a delta of 0.1%, and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25891), a delta of -0.1%. It also sits just 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25740) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (25726). This clustering shows that the FirePro W7100, despite its age, delivers performance that is statistically indistinguishable from much more recent parts in this aggregate metric.

The Intel Arc A350M's average score of 24647 is similarly positioned against its rivals. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24744) by 0.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24763) by 0.5%. However, it leads the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24442) by 0.8% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24277) by 1.5%. This data indicates that the Arc A350M's performance profile is competitive with a range of desktop and mobile GPUs, though its wins are less pronounced than the FirePro's Vulkan victory.

The individual benchmark results tell a story of specialization. In OpenCL, the Intel part's 1.5% lead is its only head-to-head win, but it is a narrow one. In contrast, the AMD part's 11.2% lead in Vulkan is a dominant performance. The data suggests that for applications leveraging the Vulkan API, the FirePro W7100 is the clear choice, while for OpenCL-heavy workloads, the Arc A350M has a slight edge. The overall picture is one of a tie, with each GPU having a distinct strength.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W7100 has a higher average benchmark score of 25856, compared to the Intel Arc A350M's 24647. This puts the AMD part in the 71st percentile of all GPUs, one point ahead of the Intel part's 70th percentile.

Q: What is the performance difference between the two in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W7100 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test decisively, scoring 27529 against the Intel Arc A350M's 24747. This represents an 11.2% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A350M compare to the AMD Radeon RX 590?

A: The Intel Arc A350M's average benchmark score of 24647 is 0.4% lower than the AMD Radeon RX 590's 24744. The two are very closely matched in this aggregate metric.

Q: What is the difference in texture fill rates between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has a slightly higher texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s, while the AMD FirePro W7100 has a texture rate of 103.0 GTexel/s. The difference is minimal, at just over 2%.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has a significantly higher pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s, compared to the AMD FirePro W7100's 29.44 GPixel/s. The Intel part is nearly 80% faster in this specific metric.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Intel Arc A350M's DG2-128 chip has a transistor density of 45.9M / mm², which is substantially higher than the AMD FirePro W7100's Tonga chip density of 13.7M / mm². This reflects the more modern 6 nm manufacturing process used for the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The AMD FirePro W7100 is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Tonga chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is an older, monolithic design intended for workstation use. In contrast, the Intel Arc A350M utilizes the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, built on a more advanced 6 nm process, also at TSMC. This represents a modern, power-efficient design aimed at the mobile segment.

The transistor counts and die sizes highlight the different design philosophies. The AMD Tonga chip packs 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.7M / mm². The Intel DG2-128 chip, on the other hand, contains 7,200 million transistors on a much smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a density of 45.9M / mm². The higher density of the Intel chip is a direct result of the smaller process node and allows for more complex logic in a smaller physical footprint.

Feature support also diverges significantly. The Intel Arc A350M includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD FirePro W7100. This is a key generational difference, as ray tracing is a modern rendering technique. Furthermore, the Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD card is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.4, which is a newer version than the 1.2.170 supported by the AMD card.

The compute capabilities of the two architectures also differ. The AMD FirePro W7100 delivers 3.297 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same 3.297 TFLOPS for FP16, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The Intel Arc A350M offers a slightly higher 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32, but its FP16 performance is 6.758 TFLOPS, a 2:1 ratio. This shows that the Intel architecture is designed to leverage packed FP16 operations for higher throughput in supported workloads.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs reveal stark contrasts in nearly every category. The AMD FirePro W7100 is a discrete, single-slot card with a 150 W TDP and a 1x 6-pin power connector, requiring a 450 W power supply. The Intel Arc A350M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, as it is designed to be part of a mobile system. The bus interface also differs, with the AMD card using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the Intel part using PCIe 4.0 x8.

Memory configurations are drastically different. The FirePro W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s. The Arc A350M has only 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, resulting in a lower bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. While the Intel part uses a faster memory type, its narrower bus limits its overall bandwidth.

The core configurations also favor the older AMD card in terms of raw counts. The FirePro W7100 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Arc A350M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the Intel part achieves a higher pixel rate (52.80 GPixel/s vs 29.44 GPixel/s) and a comparable texture rate (105.6 GTexel/s vs 103.0 GTexel/s), due to its higher clock speeds. The Intel part's base clock is 1150 MHz with a boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the AMD card's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data.

The memory clocks also differ, with the AMD card running at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and the Intel part at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The display outputs are another differentiator, with the FirePro W7100 offering 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Arc A350M's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent." Finally, the release dates are separated by nearly eight years, with the AMD card launching in 2014 and the Intel part in 2022.

The Verdict

The data presents a case for each GPU depending on the user's priorities. For applications that heavily utilize the Vulkan API, the AMD FirePro W7100 is the clear winner, with an 11.2% performance advantage over the Intel Arc A350M in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Its higher average benchmark score and better percentile ranking also suggest it is the more powerful overall part in this dataset.

The Intel Arc A350M, however, makes a compelling argument on the merits of efficiency and modern features. Its 25 W TDP is a fraction of the FirePro W7100's 150 W, making it suitable for portable devices. It also brings ray tracing support, a newer DirectX version, and a significantly higher pixel rate. For users who need these modern capabilities or who are constrained by power and form factor, the Arc A350M is the appropriate choice.

Users who require large amounts of memory will find the FirePro W7100's 8 GB frame buffer more appealing than the Arc A350M's 4 GB. Similarly, the AMD card's higher memory bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 112.0 GB/s) may benefit certain workloads. The choice ultimately boils down to workload specifics: the FirePro W7100 for raw Vulkan performance and memory capacity, or the Arc A350M for power efficiency, modern feature support, and a higher pixel throughput. The benchmark results show a tie in wins, but the nature of those wins is what should guide a decision.