AMD FirePro W7100 vs Intel Arc A370M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall victory for the Intel Arc A370M, winning both head-to-head tests against the AMD FirePro W7100. The most substantial difference appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Intel part scores 29,676 against the AMD part's 24,182. That is a 22.7% advantage for the Intel Arc A370M, a decisive margin in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The gap narrows considerably in the Vulkan test, however, with the Intel Arc A370M posting 28,673 versus the FirePro W7100's 27,529, a 4.2% lead. While still a win, this smaller delta suggests that the two cards are much closer in performance when running through Vulkan's API, potentially due to driver maturity or the specific workload characteristics of that test.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Intel Arc A370M sits at 29,175, which places it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The AMD FirePro W7100, by contrast, averages 25,856 and lands in the 71st percentile. The Intel part's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (average score 29,197, a delta of -0.1% from the Arc) and the AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211, also -0.1% from the Arc). This means the Arc A370M is essentially trading blows with those two cards, coming in just fractions of a percent behind them. It is also 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996) and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874). For the AMD FirePro W7100, the closest competitor is the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842, delta 0.1%), followed by the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25,891, delta -0.1%). The FirePro W7100 is also 0.5% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (25,726). These figures indicate that the Arc A370M's average score is roughly 12.8% higher than the FirePro W7100's average, reinforcing the OpenCL result as the primary driver of the overall performance gap.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on vastly different process nodes. The Intel Arc A370M uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation (Arc 3 Mobile). It is fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The AMD FirePro W7100 uses the older GCN 3.0 architecture, built on the Tonga chip, and is part of the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. It uses a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 6 nm versus 28 nm. This directly impacts transistor density, where the Intel chip achieves 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter versus the AMD chip's 13.7 million per square millimeter. The Intel DG2-128 die contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, while the AMD Tonga die holds 5,000 million transistors on a much larger 366 mm² die.

Memory configurations also differ significantly. The Intel Arc A370M comes with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The AMD FirePro W7100 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, which delivers 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card's wider bus and higher capacity are notable for larger datasets, even though its memory type is older. In terms of compute resources, the Intel part has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 8 ray tracing cores. The AMD FirePro W7100 has more shading units at 1,792, more TMUs at 112, and the same 32 ROPs. It has no ray tracing cores. Despite having fewer shading units, the Intel card achieves a higher FP32 throughput of 4.198 TFLOPS compared to the AMD card's 3.297 TFLOPS. The Intel card also supports FP16 at 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the AMD card's FP16 is the same as its FP32 at 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Clock speeds are another point of divergence. The Intel Arc A370M has a base clock of 1550 MHz and a boost clock of 2050 MHz. The AMD FirePro W7100 does not have base or boost clocks listed in the database. The Intel card's memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the AMD card's memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Pixel and texture rates reflect the architectural differences: the Intel part outputs 65.60 GPixel/s and 131.2 GTexel/s, while the AMD part outputs 29.44 GPixel/s and 103.0 GTexel/s. Power consumption is also in stark contrast, with the Intel Arc A370M rated at 35 W TDP and the AMD FirePro W7100 rated at 150 W TDP. The AMD card requires a 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the Intel card is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connector listed. The bus interface differs as well: the Intel card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16. For display outputs, the Intel card is listed as "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the AMD card provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. API support also shows a generation gap: the Intel card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A370M wins decisively in raw compute throughput, as evidenced by its 22.7% lead in the OpenCL benchmark. Its higher FP32 and FP16 rates, combined with a much lower power envelope (35 W versus 150 W), make it the better choice for workloads that are shader-bound or that can leverage FP16 acceleration. The presence of ray tracing cores also gives it a functional advantage in applications that use ray-traced effects, a feature the AMD FirePro W7100 lacks entirely. The Intel card's support for newer APIs, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, makes it more suitable for modern rendering pipelines and future software titles.

The AMD FirePro W7100 has specific strengths that the Intel card cannot match. Its 8 GB of memory is double the Intel card's 4 GB, and its 256-bit bus provides 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 42.9% higher than the Intel card's 112.0 GB/s. For large framebuffers, high-resolution textures, or compute workloads that require holding large datasets in VRAM, the AMD card has a clear capacity advantage. Its pixel rate is lower, but its texture rate is closer, at 103.0 GTexel/s versus the Intel card's 131.2 GTexel/s. The AMD card also has more shading units (1,792 versus 1,024), which can help in certain parallel workloads despite the lower clock speeds. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it a more flexible option for multi-monitor professional setups, whereas the Intel card's outputs depend on the portable device it is integrated into.

In the Vulkan benchmark, the Intel card wins by only 4.2%, which suggests that the AMD FirePro W7100 is more competitive in this API. This could be due to the workload's characteristics, but the data alone shows a narrower gap. For users targeting Vulkan-based applications, the difference between the two cards is smaller than the OpenCL gap would imply.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Arc A370M is the superior performer in the two benchmark tests conducted. It wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests, has a higher average benchmark score (29,175 versus 25,856), and sits in a higher percentile rank (74th versus 71st). Its performance is comparable to, and in some cases better than, several higher-tier competitors, such as the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, which it beats by 1%. The Intel card also offers modern features like ray tracing, newer API support, and significantly lower power consumption, all while delivering higher compute throughput.

The AMD FirePro W7100, however, remains relevant for scenarios where memory capacity and bandwidth are the primary constraints. Its 8 GB VRAM and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth are superior to the Intel part's 4 GB and 112.0 GB/s. For professional workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound, such as large-scale data visualization or complex CAD scenes, the AMD card could still be the better fit. Its 4x DisplayPort outputs also make it a more natural choice for a fixed workstation with multiple monitors.

For most users, especially those in mobile or compact systems, the Intel Arc A370M is the clear choice from a performance-per-watt perspective. Its 35 W TDP versus the AMD card's 150 W TDP means it can deliver higher performance in OpenCL and Vulkan while consuming far less power. The AMD FirePro W7100 is a legacy part from 2014, and while it holds its own in certain memory-heavy scenarios, the data shows it is outperformed on average by the Intel Arc A370M by about 12.8%. The verdict is straightforward: pick the Intel Arc A370M for compute performance and efficiency, pick the AMD FirePro W7100 only if you specifically need its larger memory pool and higher bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has an average benchmark score of 29,175, while the AMD FirePro W7100 has an average score of 25,856.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A370M in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Intel Arc A370M scores 29,676 compared to the AMD FirePro W7100's 24,182, a 22.7% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W7100 have more memory than the Intel Arc A370M?

A: Yes, the AMD FirePro W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Intel Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has a TDP of 35 W, while the AMD FirePro W7100 has a TDP of 150 W.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A370M includes 8 ray tracing cores, while the AMD FirePro W7100 has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each card?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has a memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s, and the AMD FirePro W7100 has a memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s.