AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D and Intel Arc A380M occupy entirely different segments of the GPU landscape. The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results, so the analysis must rely on architectural specifications and performance ceilings.

The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D is positioned for compute-heavy professional workloads. Its 32 GB GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than triple the Intel part's 186.0 GB/s. The 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output pipelines give it a raw throughput advantage that scales across rendering, simulation, and AI inference tasks.

The Intel Arc A380M is a mobile-oriented MXM module with a 35 W TDP, designed for compact or portable systems. Its 6 GB GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus is modest by comparison, but the 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs still provide a functional baseline for entry-level 3D workloads and media acceleration. The 8 ray tracing cores indicate some RT capability, though with far lower pixel and texture rates than the AMD part.

The win distribution is clear: the AMD part wins on every measurable performance metric, while the Intel part wins on power efficiency and physical flexibility. The 150 W TDP of the AMD card versus 35 W for the Intel means the latter can be deployed in thermally constrained environments where the former cannot operate at all.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process. The Intel Arc A380M uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process.

The process node advantage is significant. The 4 nm node allows AMD to pack 53,900 million transistors into a 357 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 151.0 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. This means the AMD GPU has roughly 7.5 times more transistors and a die that is about 2.3 times larger, but with over 3 times the transistor density.

Clock behavior differs notably. The AMD part has a base clock of 1080 MHz and a boost clock of 2020 MHz, with the game clock listed at 1080 MHz. The Intel part has a higher base clock of 1550 MHz but a similar boost of 2000 MHz. Despite the higher base clock on Intel, the massive difference in shading units and memory bandwidth gives AMD the overall throughput edge.

Memory architecture is another major split. AMD uses 32 GB of GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Intel uses 6 GB of GDDR6 across a 96-bit bus at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The bandwidth gap is 576.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, a 3.1x advantage for AMD.

The FP16 compute ratios differ as well. AMD delivers 24.82 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, indicating a 1:1 ratio. Intel delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 but 8.192 TFLOPS FP16, a 2:1 ratio. This means Intel can double its throughput on half-precision workloads, while AMD maintains consistent performance across both precisions.

Physical design and interface also diverge. The AMD card is a single-slot PCIe 5.0 x16 card measuring 241 mm, with a single DisplayPort 2.1a output. The Intel module uses an MXM-A (3.1) interface with portable device dependent display outputs, meaning it is designed for laptops or modular systems rather than desktop expansion slots.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. Wins are recorded as zero for both sides. However, the specification data provides a basis for comparative analysis that the measurements would likely confirm.

The largest arithmetic advantage appears in memory bandwidth. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D delivers 576.0 GB/s against 186.0 GB/s for the Intel Arc A380M, a 3.1x difference. For memory-intensive workloads such as large dataset manipulation or high-resolution texture streaming, this gap would dominate all other factors.

Pixel throughput shows a 3.0x gap: 193.9 GPixel/s for AMD versus 64.00 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture throughput shows a 3.0x gap as well: 387.8 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. These ratios are consistent, suggesting that the AMD part scales uniformly across the rendering pipeline.

FP32 compute performance is 24.82 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS, a 6.1x difference. This is the single largest performance gap in the recorded specifications. For general compute workloads that rely on single-precision floating point, the AMD card holds an overwhelming advantage.

The RT core count differs by 6x: 48 on AMD versus 8 on Intel. While RT performance does not scale linearly with core count, the 6x resource difference would translate into substantial ray tracing performance advantages for AMD, assuming comparable per-core efficiency.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Intel base clock of 1550 MHz is 43.5% higher than AMD's 1080 MHz base. The boost clocks are nearly identical at 2020 MHz versus 2000 MHz. However, the Intel part's higher clocks cannot compensate for its much smaller execution resource pool.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D delivers 576.0 GB/s, which is 3.1 times the 186.0 GB/s of the Intel Arc A380M.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a 150 W TDP, while the Intel Arc A380M has a 35 W TDP, making the Intel part 115 W lower in thermal design power.

Q: Which GPU has better FP16 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D delivers 24.82 TFLOPS FP16, which is higher than the Intel Arc A380M's 8.192 TFLOPS FP16, despite the Intel part having a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio.

Q: Are these GPUs compatible with the same systems?

A: No. The AMD card uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and is a single-slot desktop card, while the Intel module uses an MXM-A (3.1) interface designed for portable devices.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has 48 ray tracing cores, compared to 8 on the Intel Arc A380M, a 6x difference.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D is the superior performer across every recorded compute and rendering metric. Its FP32 throughput of 24.82 TFLOPS dwarfs the 4.096 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A380M. Its memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s enables workloads that would be impossible on the Intel part's 186.0 GB/s. The 32 GB memory capacity versus 6 GB means the AMD card can hold far larger datasets in VRAM, reducing or eliminating the need for system memory spills.

The Intel Arc A380M wins where power and physical constraints matter. At 35 W TDP, it operates at less than one-quarter of the AMD card's 150 W TDP. Its MXM module form factor allows installation in laptops or compact industrial systems where the 241 mm single-slot AMD card cannot fit. For portable or embedded applications with modest graphics requirements, the Intel part is the only viable option between the two.

The process node difference also matters for longevity and efficiency. The AMD card's 4 nm process with 151.0 million transistors per square millimeter suggests a more modern manufacturing approach than Intel's 6 nm with 45.9 million per square millimeter. However, the AMD card's higher transistor count and larger die also mean higher manufacturing complexity and power draw.

The generation timing supports the architectural split. The AMD card is listed with a release date of 2025-12-10, while the Intel part dates to 2023-01-23. The nearly three-year gap explains the process node advantage and the larger execution resource pool on the AMD side.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D | Intel Arc A380M |

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

| Chip | Navi 48 | DG2-128 |

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) | Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 53,900 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 357 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 151.0M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1080 MHz | 1550 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2020 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1080 MHz | None |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 96 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 186.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 192 | 64 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 48 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 193.9 GPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 387.8 GTexel/s | 128.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 24.82 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 24.82 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.1) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DisplayPort 2.1a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 241 mm x 111 mm x 19 mm | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2025-12-10 | 2023-01-23 |