AMD FirePro W8000 vs Intel Arc A370M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Arc A370M and AMD FirePro W8000 split their two benchmark head-to-head matchups exactly evenly, but the margins tell a fascinating story about how differently these two GPUs perform depending on the workload.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A370M delivers a decisive victory, scoring 29,676 against the FirePro W8000's 24,440. That's a 17.6% delta in Intel's favor, a substantial gap that highlights how far GPU compute has evolved since the FirePro's 2012 debut. The Arc A370M's OpenCL result stands as its strongest benchmark showing in this comparison.

The tables turn dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD FirePro W8000 posts 33,981 versus the Arc A370M's 28,673. The FirePro wins this round by an 18.5% margin, essentially mirroring the OpenCL deficit with an almost identical gap in the opposite direction. This is a remarkably symmetrical result: each GPU leads by roughly the same percentage in its preferred API.

When averaging both scores, the overall picture tightens considerably. The FirePro W8000's average benchmark score is 29,211, while the Arc A370M sits at 29,175 — a difference of just 36 points, or 0.1%. These are two GPUs that, on aggregate, perform nearly identically despite their radically different architectures and release eras.

The nearest rivals list reinforces this equilibrium. Both GPUs sit within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH sits between them with an average score of 29,197. The Intel part edges out the Radeon RX 470 by 0.6%, while the FirePro leads that same rival by 0.7%. The entire cluster of five GPUs spans just 1.3 percentage points, making this one of the tightest performance clusters in the database.

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split reveals clear workload-specific strengths that go beyond raw API preferences.

The Intel Arc A370M's OpenCL dominance suggests it handles general-purpose compute workloads with significantly more efficiency. Given its 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the FirePro's 3.226 TFLOPS, the OpenCL result aligns with raw compute throughput expectations. The Arc also brings 8.397 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio), which the FirePro lacks entirely — a feature that matters for machine learning inference and certain media workloads, though the benchmark data only covers OpenCL and Vulkan.

The AMD FirePro W8000's Vulkan victory is more surprising given its older architecture. The GCN 1.0 architecture's Vulkan support is listed at 1.2.170, while the Arc A370M supports Vulkan 1.4. Despite the newer API version on Intel's side, the FirePro's higher raw score in this test suggests its driver implementation or hardware characteristics handle Vulkan's draw call patterns particularly well. This could indicate that the FirePro's 112 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, combined with its 256-bit memory bus delivering 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth, provide advantages in certain rendering scenarios.

For gaming and real-time graphics workloads, the Arc A370M's 65.60 GPixel/s pixel rate and 131.2 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the FirePro's 28.80 GPixel/s and 100.8 GTexel/s. The Arc also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the FirePro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1) with no ray tracing hardware. These specification advantages suggest the Arc would win in modern gaming scenarios, even though the benchmark data doesn't directly measure gaming performance.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs spans a decade of semiconductor evolution.

The AMD FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 4,313 million transistors into a 352 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. This was a flagship workstation GPU in its era, released on June 13, 2012, as part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation.

The Intel Arc A370M represents a fundamentally different approach. Its DG2-128 chip uses Xe-HPG architecture, built on TSMC's 6 nm process. The die is just 157 mm² but contains 7,200 million transistors, achieving a density of 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter — nearly four times the FirePro's density. This density advantage explains how Intel packs more features into a physically smaller chip while consuming dramatically less power.

The memory subsystems diverge significantly. Both cards have 4 GB, but the FirePro uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, achieving 176.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A370M uses GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s. The FirePro's wider bus compensates for older memory technology, but the Arc's narrower bus means it must rely more heavily on cache efficiency and memory compression.

The power envelope tells the most dramatic story. The FirePro W8000 draws 225 W TDP and requires dual-slot cooling with 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested power supply. The Arc A370M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 35 W TDP — less than one-sixth the power draw. This efficiency difference stems directly from the 10 years of process node improvements between them.

Feature support also separates them. The Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and includes 8 ray tracing cores, while the FirePro maxes out at DirectX 12 (11_1) with no ray tracing. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Intel's Vulkan 1.4 support exceeds AMD's 1.2.170. The FirePro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs for professional display configurations, while the Arc's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile IGP nature.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 edges out the Intel Arc A370M by just 36 points, averaging 29,211 versus 29,175 — a 0.1% difference that places them in a statistical tie.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the individual benchmarks?

A: The Intel Arc A370M wins Geekbench OpenCL with 29,676 versus 24,440 (17.6% lead), while the AMD FirePro W8000 wins Geekbench Vulkan with 33,981 versus 28,673 (18.5% lead).

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 has a 225 W TDP and requires dual-slot cooling with 2x 6-pin power connectors. The Intel Arc A370M is an integrated GPU with a 35 W TDP, making it dramatically more power-efficient.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. The Intel Arc A370M features 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the AMD FirePro W8000 has no ray tracing hardware and only supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc A370M delivers 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the AMD FirePro W8000 provides 3.226 TFLOPS FP32 with no FP16 capability listed.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 has 176.0 GB/s bandwidth from 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Intel Arc A370M has 112.0 GB/s from 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

# The Verdict

The data presents a genuine dilemma for prospective buyers, as neither GPU holds a definitive overall advantage.

Choose the AMD FirePro W8000 if Vulkan performance is your priority. Its 18.5% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is substantial, and its higher average benchmark score (29,211 versus 29,175) makes it the nominal aggregate winner. The FirePro's 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and SDI outputs also make it suitable for multi-display professional workstations, and its 176.0 GB/s memory bandwidth from the 256-bit bus provides advantages for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The 225 W TDP and dual-slot form factor are acceptable trade-offs for desktop workstation environments.

Choose the Intel Arc A370M if OpenCL compute performance and energy efficiency matter most. Its 17.6% OpenCL lead demonstrates superior general-purpose compute capability, and its 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 throughput outpaces the FirePro. The 8 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it the clear choice for modern graphics workloads and gaming. The 35 W TDP means it can operate in thin-and-light laptops where the FirePro's 225 W power draw would be impossible.

The benchmark data suggests both GPUs occupy the same performance tier, as confirmed by their nearest rivals positioning. Both sit within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, and each has the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH within a 0.1% delta. This cluster represents a performance plateau where architectural differences matter less than workload-specific optimizations.

For professionals requiring Vulkan rendering performance and multiple display outputs, the FirePro W8000 remains viable despite its 2012 release date. For users needing modern API support, ray tracing, and efficiency, the Arc A370M is the forward-looking choice. The data cannot declare an overall winner — it declares two specialists in different domains.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W8000 | Intel Arc A370M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Chip | Tahiti | DG2-128 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

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

| Die Size | 352 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 1550 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) | 1750 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 | 1792 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 112 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | Not specified | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 28.80 GPixel/s | 65.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.8 GTexel/s | 131.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.226 TFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 225 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not specified |

| 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 |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Release Date | 2012-06-13 | 2022-03-29 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

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

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 4 GB |