AMD FirePro W8000 vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The two GPUs split their recorded benchmark wins evenly, but the nature of those wins tells a very different story about what each card is optimized for. The AMD FirePro W8000 takes the Vulkan test decisively, while the Intel Arc A350M edges ahead in OpenCL by a razor-thin margin.

The FirePro W8000’s Vulkan result is the standout performance in this comparison. Scoring 33,981 points, it outperforms the Arc A350M by 37.3% in that specific workload. This is not a marginal advantage; it is a substantial gap that suggests the older GCN architecture, despite its age, has strong low-level API execution capabilities that scale well in Vulkan-based applications. The database places the FirePro in the 75th percentile of all GPUs, which is notable for a card released over a decade earlier.

The Arc A350M wins the OpenCL test, but only by 0.4%, scoring 24,546 versus 24,440. This is effectively a statistical tie. The data indicates neither card has a meaningful edge in general-purpose compute through OpenCL; the difference is well within normal run-to-run variance. What matters more is that the Arc A350M’s average benchmark score across both tests is 24,647, while the FirePro averages 29,211. That 18.5% gap in average score is driven entirely by the Vulkan result.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database clarifies the positioning further. The FirePro W8000’s average score of 29,211 places it essentially level with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197, 0% delta) and just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A370M (29,175). It also sits 1.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874). The Arc A350M, meanwhile, averages 24,647, which is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744) and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763). It runs 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442) and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24,277).

The practical interpretation is clear: the FirePro W8000 is the stronger card in Vulkan-centric workloads by a wide margin, while the Arc A350M offers competitive OpenCL performance but falls far behind in Vulkan. For users prioritizing Vulkan gaming or compute, the FirePro has a clear advantage. For OpenCL-based tasks, the two are interchangeable based on measured scores.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting their different release eras and design philosophies. The FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,313 million transistors into a 352 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The Arc A350M uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors in a much smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The density difference is stark: the Intel chip crams nearly four times as many transistors per area.

The compute resources differ fundamentally. The FirePro has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The Arc A350M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Despite having fewer than half the shading units, the Arc achieves higher raw throughput because of its much higher clock speeds. The FirePro’s memory clock is 1,375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective), while the Arc runs at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The Arc also has explicit base and boost clocks of 1,150 MHz and 2,200 MHz, whereas the FirePro has no listed base or boost clocks.

Memory configurations differ in bus width and type. Both have 4 GB of VRAM, but the FirePro uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. The FirePro’s wider bus gives it 57% more memory bandwidth despite slower memory clocks. The Arc compensates partially with higher effective data rates.

The Arc A350M includes 6 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the FirePro. It also supports FP16 at 6.758 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the FirePro has no listed FP16 capability. The Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the FirePro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Arc has Vulkan 1.4 versus the FirePro’s Vulkan 1.2.170. The Arc is built for modern API feature sets; the FirePro is a legacy workstation card.

Power and physical design differ enormously. The FirePro is a dual-slot card requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested power supply, with a 225 W TDP. The Arc A350M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The FirePro measures 279 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the Arc has no listed dimensions because it is designed for mobile integration. The FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the FirePro has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, while the Arc’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains only two tests, and they could hardly be more divergent. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A350M scores 24,546 against the FirePro’s 24,440, a delta of negative 0.4% relative to the FirePro. This is a margin so thin that it carries no practical significance. Both cards effectively deliver identical OpenCL performance. The FirePro’s 1,792 shading units and 176 GB/s bandwidth are offset by the Arc’s higher clocks and modern memory, resulting in a dead heat.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro W8000 wins decisively with 33,981 points versus 24,747 for the Arc A350M. That is a 37.3% advantage. The magnitude of this gap suggests the FirePro’s GCN architecture has unusually strong Vulkan driver optimization or hardware scheduling that the Arc cannot match, despite the Arc’s newer design and ray tracing hardware. The Arc’s Vulkan score is actually lower than its OpenCL score (24,747 versus 24,546), indicating Vulkan is not a strength for this Intel GPU. The FirePro, conversely, scores 39% higher in Vulkan than in OpenCL (33,981 versus 24,440), showing a clear API-specific strength.

The average benchmark scores reflect this imbalance. The FirePro averages 29,211 across both tests, while the Arc averages 24,647. That 4,564-point gap is entirely attributable to the Vulkan result. If Vulkan workloads are the primary use case, the FirePro is the obvious choice. If OpenCL is the target, the data shows no meaningful difference. The wins are split one apiece, but the points differential heavily favors the FirePro.

The nearest rival data helps contextualize these averages. The FirePro’s 29,211 average puts it in company with the RX Vega M GH (29,197), Arc A370M (29,175), RX 470 (28,996), and RX 6800M (28,874). All of these are within 1.2% of each other. The Arc A350M’s 24,647 average sits with the RX 590 (24,744), RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763), RX 6600 XT (24,442), and GTX 1630 (24,277). The FirePro’s peer group is roughly 18% faster on average than the Arc’s peer group, which aligns with the overall average score gap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 averages 29,211 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Arc A350M averages 24,647. The FirePro leads by 4,564 points, a gap driven almost entirely by its Vulkan performance.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance difference?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro W8000 scores 33,981 versus 24,747 for the Arc A350M. That is a 37.3% advantage for the FirePro, the largest single-test margin between the two cards.

Q: Do the cards differ in OpenCL performance?

A: The difference is negligible. The Arc A350M scores 24,546 and the FirePro scores 24,440, a delta of only 0.4% in favor of the Arc. For practical purposes, OpenCL performance is equivalent.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The FirePro W8000 has 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Arc A350M has 112.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The FirePro provides 57% more bandwidth.

Q: Does the Arc A350M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A350M includes 6 ray tracing cores. The FirePro W8000 has no ray tracing cores, as its GCN 1.0 architecture predates that feature.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Arc A350M has a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter, versus 12.3 million per square millimeter for the FirePro. This reflects the 6 nm versus 28 nm process difference.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The table below highlights only the fields where they are not identical.

| Specification | AMD FirePro W8000 | Intel Arc A350M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx000) | Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) |

| Process node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 4,313 million | 7,200 million |

| Die size | 352 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.3M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | Not listed | 1,150 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not listed | 2,200 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1,375 MHz, 5.5 Gbps effective | 1,750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1,792 | 768 |

| TMUs | 112 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| Ray tracing cores | None | 6 |

| Pixel rate | 28.80 GPixel/s | 52.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 100.8 GTexel/s | 105.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.226 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 225 W | 25 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | None |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI | Portable device dependent |

| DirectX support | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 279 mm x 111 mm | Not listed |

| Release date | June 13, 2012 | March 29, 2022 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,599 USD | Not listed |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | None |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | None |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 75 | 70 |

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split decision. For Vulkan-based workloads, the AMD FirePro W8000 is the superior choice by a large margin. Its 33,981 Vulkan score versus the Arc A350M’s 24,747 represents a 37.3% advantage, and that single result pushes its average benchmark score to 29,211, placing it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro also offers significantly more memory bandwidth (176.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s) and a wider 256-bit bus, which can benefit bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

For OpenCL workloads, the two cards are effectively tied. The Arc A350M’s 0.4% lead is within measurement noise. However, the Arc has other advantages that the FirePro cannot match. It includes 6 ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, has a much lower 25 W TDP versus 225 W, and is built on a far denser 6 nm process. Its FP32 throughput of 3.379 TFLOPS actually exceeds the FirePro’s 3.226 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s is slightly higher than 100.8 GTexel/s.

The FirePro is a dual-slot workstation card from 2012 with a 1,599 USD launch MSRP, requiring a 550 W power supply. The Arc is a mobile integrated GPU from 2022 with no standalone power requirements. The FirePro wins on Vulkan performance and memory bandwidth; the Arc wins on feature set, efficiency, and modern API support. Users who need maximum Vulkan throughput should choose the FirePro. Users who need ray tracing, low power consumption, or DirectX 12 Ultimate features should choose the Arc. The recorded benchmark data gives one win to each card, but the FirePro’s Vulkan dominance is the single most decisive metric in this comparison.