AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no recorded head-to-head comparison scores for the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D and the Intel Arc A310E. Both products have an average benchmark score of 0 in the current dataset, and each sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs tracked by the database. With no wins recorded for either side and an empty head-to-head benchmark table, a direct numerical performance comparison cannot be derived from the available measurements.

What the data does show is a massive theoretical compute gap between the two parts, based on their published specifications. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D delivers 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at roughly 8 times the single-precision throughput of the Intel part, a figure that comes directly from dividing the two recorded FP32 values. In FP16, the AMD card again posts 24.82 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel card reaches 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning the AMD part holds a 4 times advantage in half-precision throughput as well.

Pixel and texture rates reinforce the same hierarchy. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D achieves 193.9 GPixel/s and 387.8 GTexel/s. The Intel Arc A310E achieves 32.00 GPixel/s and 64.00 GTexel/s. Dividing these figures shows the AMD card is approximately 6 times faster in pixel fill and roughly 6 times faster in texture fill. These are not benchmark results, but they do represent the recorded architectural limits of each GPU.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The AMD part has 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth from a 256-bit bus with 32 GB of GDDR6 memory. The Intel part has 124.0 GB/s from a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory. The AMD card offers about 4.6 times the memory bandwidth, which directly affects how quickly both cards can feed their respective compute units. The AMD card also carries 32 GB of VRAM versus 4 GB, a substantial difference for any workload that exceeds the Intel card's frame buffer capacity.

Shader resources are heavily skewed toward the AMD card. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, along with 48 ray tracing cores. The Arc A310E uses 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with 6 ray tracing cores. Multiplying the recorded unit counts shows the AMD card has 4 times the shading units, 6 times the TMUs, 6 times the ROPs, and 8 times the ray tracing cores. These ratios align closely with the compute and fill-rate deltas already noted.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages entirely. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0, part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) generation. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. Both architectures support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical on paper.

Manufacturing process differs substantially. The AMD chip is fabricated on a 4 nm node at TSMC, while the Intel chip is fabricated on a 6 nm node, also at TSMC. The smaller node allows the AMD chip to pack 53,900 million transistors onto a 357 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 151.0 million transistors per mm². The Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for a density of 45.9 million per mm². The AMD die is more than twice the area and holds roughly 7.5 times the transistor count.

Memory architecture is another clear divergence. The AMD card uses a 256-bit memory bus with 32 GB of GDDR6 running at 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective and produces 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel card uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6 running at 1937 MHz, which translates to 15.5 Gbps effective and produces 124.0 GB/s. The bus width difference alone, 256 bits versus 64 bits, is a 4 times gap that explains most of the bandwidth delta.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD card has a base clock of 1080 MHz and a boost clock of 2020 MHz, with a game clock also listed at 1080 MHz. The Intel card has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency with no boost headroom. The Intel part's higher base clock does not compensate for its much smaller execution resource pool.

Power and board design show opposing philosophies. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a TDP of 150 W, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and requires a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Intel Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W, requires no external power connector, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both cards are single-slot designs, but the AMD card is larger at 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 19 mm in width, versus the Intel card at 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

Interface and display outputs also differ. The AMD card uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and provides a single DisplayPort 2.1a output. The Intel card uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The AMD card's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface offers much higher host bandwidth, while the Intel card's four outputs allow for multi-display configurations out of the box.

Production status separates the two as well. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D is listed as Active, with a release date of 2025-12-10 and a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega. The Intel Arc A310E is listed as End-of-life, with a release date of 2024-03-31, a predecessor of Xe Graphics, and a successor of Battlemage. The AMD card is a current-generation product, while the Intel card has been superseded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D delivers 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32, versus 3.072 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc A310E. The AMD part also leads in FP16 with 24.82 TFLOPS (1:1) against 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD card has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel card has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card provides roughly 4.6 times the bandwidth and 8 times the capacity.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a TDP of 150 W, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and lists a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Intel Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W, requires no power connector, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Are the two cards the same physical size?

A: No. The AMD card measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 19 mm in width. The Intel card measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. Both are single-slot designs, but the AMD card is noticeably larger.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The Intel Arc A310E provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D provides a single DisplayPort 2.1a output.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D is Active, released on 2025-12-10. The Intel Arc A310E is End-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with a successor named Battlemage.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D and the Intel Arc A310E based on the recorded data:

• Chip: Navi 48 versus DG2-128
• Architecture: RDNA 4.0 versus Xe-HPG
• Generation: Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) versus Alchemist (Arc 3)
• Process node: 4 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 53,900 million versus 7,200 million
• Die size: 357 mm² versus 157 mm²
• Transistor density: 151.0M / mm² versus 45.9M / mm²
• Base clock: 1080 MHz versus 2000 MHz
• Boost clock: 2020 MHz versus 2000 MHz
• Memory clock: 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective versus 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 32 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 576.0 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 3072 versus 768
• TMUs: 192 versus 32
• ROPs: 96 versus 16
• Ray tracing cores: 48 versus 6
• Pixel rate: 193.9 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 387.8 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 24.82 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS
• FP16: 24.82 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 150 W versus 75 W
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 450 W versus 250 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display outputs: 1x DisplayPort 2.1a versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0
• Dimensions: 241 mm x 111 mm x 19 mm versus 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life
• Release date: 2025-12-10 versus 2024-03-31
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega versus Xe Graphics
• Successor: null versus Battlemage

Fields that are identical include DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, GDDR6 memory type, single-slot width, and null tensor core counts.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a complete class separation between these two GPUs. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D holds a decisive lead in every measured compute and memory category: FP32 throughput is 8 times higher, FP16 throughput is 4 times higher, pixel rate is roughly 6 times higher, texture rate is roughly 6 times higher, memory bandwidth is roughly 4.6 times higher, and VRAM capacity is 8 times higher. The card also uses a newer 4 nm process, a larger die with 53,900 million transistors, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. It is an active product with no successor listed.

The Intel Arc A310E counters with a lower power profile. At 75 W TDP with no external power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU, it draws half the power of the AMD card, which requires 150 W and a 450 W PSU. The Intel card is also physically smaller, measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm versus 241 mm by 111 mm by 19 mm, and it offers four display outputs instead of one. Its fixed 2000 MHz clock runs higher than the AMD base clock of 1080 MHz, but that does not offset the resource gap.

For workloads that need large memory capacity, high bandwidth, or substantial compute throughput, the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D is the only choice between the two based on the data. For systems constrained by power, space, or display count, the Intel Arc A310E provides a low-footprint option with four outputs and no external power requirement. The AMD card is production-active, while the Intel card is end-of-life with a known successor, which further favors the AMD part for ongoing availability. The data does not support a scenario where the Intel card outperforms the AMD card in any recorded specification category.