AMD FirePro W8000 vs Intel Arc Pro A30M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M has a higher average benchmark score of 31,894 compared to the AMD FirePro W8000's average of 29,211. The Arc Pro A30M's single recorded test (Geekbench OpenCL) also exceeds the FirePro W8000's best result.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Pro A30M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc Pro A30M sits within a tight competitive band. It is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (31,676), 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (31,532), and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 570X (32,176). It also trails the AMD FirePro S10000 (32,388) by 1.5%.

Q: What is the performance gap between the two cards in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc Pro A30M scores 31,894, which is 30.5% higher than the AMD FirePro W8000's 24,440. The Arc Pro A30M wins this head-to-head benchmark outright.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of memory, but they differ in type and bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s. The AMD FirePro W8000 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 176.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M has a TDP of 50 W, while the AMD FirePro W8000 has a TDP of 225 W. The FirePro W8000 also requires dual 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested power supply, whereas the Arc Pro A30M uses no external power connectors.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing hardware?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the AMD FirePro W8000 has no ray tracing cores listed. This gives the Arc Pro A30M a feature advantage in modern rendering workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits the two cards into distinct usage profiles. The Intel Arc Pro A30M wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 30.5% margin. That makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, such as general GPU-accelerated tasks, rendering, or data processing that relies on that API.

The AMD FirePro W8000, despite losing the OpenCL comparison, holds advantages in areas not captured by the benchmark score. Its memory subsystem is significantly wider, with a 256-bit bus and 176.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the Arc Pro A30M's 64-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s. For memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks, the FirePro W8000's design could be more favorable, provided the software does not rely on newer API features.

The FirePro W8000 also has a Vulkan benchmark result (33,981) that is higher than any score recorded for the Arc Pro A30M. The database only lists a Geekbench OpenCL score for the Intel card, so the Vulkan test represents a workload where the AMD card has demonstrated capability that the Intel card has not been measured against.

In terms of raw shading resources, the FirePro W8000 has 1,792 shading units and 112 texture mapping units, compared to 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs on the Arc Pro A30M. The FirePro W8000's higher pixel rate is actually lower (28.80 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s), suggesting the Intel card has an advantage in pixel fill operations, while the AMD card may hold the edge in texture-heavy scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Intel Arc Pro A30M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation for professional mobile use. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors packed into a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter.

The AMD FirePro W8000 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tahiti chip, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. It is built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, but with 4,313 million transistors on a much larger 352 mm² die. Its transistor density is only 12.3 million per square millimeter, reflecting the older, less dense manufacturing process.

These architectural differences lead to functional gaps. The Arc Pro A30M includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the FirePro W8000. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W8000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the Intel card has a more modern feature set overall.

The FirePro W8000's GCN architecture was designed for compute in professional workloads, but it lacks the dedicated ray tracing hardware and modern API support that the Xe-HPG architecture brings. The Intel card's smaller process node allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, which is reflected in its 50 W TDP versus the FirePro W8000's 225 W TDP.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is the process node: the Intel Arc Pro A30M uses 6 nm, while the AMD FirePro W8000 uses 28 nm. This drives major changes in transistor count (7,200 million versus 4,313 million), die size (157 mm² versus 352 mm²), and transistor density (45.9M/mm² versus 12.3M/mm²).

Clock speeds differ sharply. The Arc Pro A30M has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, with memory running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The FirePro W8000 lists no base or boost clocks, but its memory runs at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration differs: both have 4 GB, but the Arc Pro A30M uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus (128.0 GB/s), while the FirePro W8000 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (176.0 GB/s). The AMD card has higher bandwidth despite slower memory clocks, thanks to its wider bus.

The compute units differ: the Arc Pro A30M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The FirePro W8000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no RT cores. The Intel card achieves higher pixel rate (64.00 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (128.0 GTexel/s versus 100.8 GTexel/s), despite fewer shading units.

Power and cooling differ substantially: the Arc Pro A30M is a 50 W card with no external power connectors and a portable-device-dependent display output. The FirePro W8000 is a 225 W dual-slot card that requires 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested power supply, with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs.

The FirePro W8000 has published dimensions (279 mm length, 111 mm height) and a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD. The Intel card lists no dimensions or launch MSRP. The FirePro W8000 also has a predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and successor (Radeon Pro Polaris), while the Arc Pro A30M lists neither.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The Intel Arc Pro A30M scores 31,894, while the AMD FirePro W8000 scores 24,440. That represents a 30.5% advantage for the Intel card, a substantial margin that places it in a higher performance tier.

To contextualize this gap, consider the nearest rivals for each card. The Arc Pro A30M's 31,894 is within 1.5% of the AMD FirePro S10000 (32,388) and within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon Pro 570X (32,176). The FirePro W8000's 24,440 is not directly compared in its rival list, but its average score of 29,211 puts it near the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197), the Intel Arc A370M (29,175), and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996).

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the only head-to-head comparison, and the Intel card wins it. The FirePro W8000 does have a separate Vulkan score of 33,981, but the Arc Pro A30M has no corresponding Vulkan measurement in the database, so no direct comparison is possible across that API.

The FirePro W8000's average benchmark score of 29,211 is dragged down by its lower OpenCL result, while the Arc Pro A30M's average equals its OpenCL score of 31,894. This suggests the Intel card is consistently performing at a higher level in the recorded metrics, while the AMD card shows more variance across different APIs.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Arc Pro A30M as the stronger overall performer. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 30.5%, achieves a higher average score (31,894 versus 29,211), and sits in the 76th percentile versus all GPUs, compared to the 75th percentile for the FirePro W8000. The Intel card also brings modern features like ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4 support, none of which the FirePro W8000 can match.

The FirePro W8000 is not without merit. Its 176.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and wider 256-bit bus could benefit workloads that are sensitive to memory throughput. Its Vulkan score of 33,981 is the highest single result in either card's benchmark list, indicating strong performance in that specific API. The card also offers more shading units (1,792 versus 1,024) and TMUs (112 versus 64), which may help in texture-heavy compute tasks.

However, the FirePro W8000's advantages are largely theoretical in the measured data. The only recorded comparison shows a clear Intel victory, and the Arc Pro A30M does so while consuming 50 W versus 225 W, requiring no external power connectors, and using a more advanced 6 nm process.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, modern API support, or power efficiency, the Intel Arc Pro A30M is the evident choice based on the recorded data. For users who need a desktop workstation card with specific display outputs (4x DisplayPort, SDI), higher memory bandwidth, or a proven Vulkan track record, the AMD FirePro W8000 remains a viable option, though its 2012 release date and 28 nm process indicate an older platform.

The verdict is straightforward: the Intel Arc Pro A30M wins the performance comparison in the database, and the AMD FirePro W8000 wins only on select legacy features and memory bandwidth. Buyers should select based on which of those priorities matters more for their specific workload.