AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D vs Intel Arc Graphics 32EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single benchmark result for the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, and no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D. The Intel part scores 733 points in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This places the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating that it outperforms only a small fraction of the overall field.

The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D shows no benchmark scores in the database, and its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. Consequently, there are no direct numerical comparisons between the two parts in any workload. The database does not provide a head-to-head benchmark array, and the win counts for both items are zero. What can be established from the available measurements is the relative standing of the Intel part against its nearest rivals in the database, which offers context for its performance tier.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU ties exactly with the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, all recording an average score of 733 with a delta percentage of 0. This indicates that, within the database, the 32EU configuration does not separate itself from lower or higher EU counts in the same architecture family, at least in the single recorded workload. Against the AMD Radeon HD 6470M, the Intel part scores 1.4% higher, with the rival achieving 723 points. Against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M, the Intel part trails by 2.4%, as the NVIDIA chip scores 751. These deltas are small, suggesting that the Arc Graphics 32EU operates in a performance band comparable to very old mobile discrete GPUs from roughly a decade earlier, despite its modern architecture and process node.

For the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D, the absence of benchmark scores means the database does not permit a quantitative comparison. Its percentile rank of 50 places it at the median of all GPUs in the database, which is a positional indicator rather than a measured performance result. Without recorded scores, any head-to-head statement would be speculative, so the analysis must rely on architectural and specification differences to characterize the two products.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses the Arrow Lake-S chip built on Xe-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. The process nodes are close, with Intel holding a slight size advantage in transistor lithography, but the AMD part packs far more transistors: 53,900 million versus 17,800 million for Intel. The die sizes reflect this, with AMD at 357 mm² and Intel at 243 mm². Transistor density is substantially higher on the AMD side, at 151.0 million transistors per mm² compared to 73.3 million per mm² for Intel.

The AMD part is a discrete add-in board with a single-slot form factor and a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it shares system memory and depends on the motherboard for display outputs. This is a fundamental architectural divergence: one is a full standalone GPU with dedicated memory, the other is an iGPU embedded in a processor package.

The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D features 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. It also includes 48 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU features 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no dedicated ray tracing cores listed in the database. The shading unit count difference is 12-fold, and the ROP count difference is also 12-fold. These resource disparities translate directly into compute throughput: the AMD part delivers 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel part delivers 998.4 GFLOPS, which is roughly 25 times lower. Texture fill rates are 387.8 GTexel/s for AMD versus 31.20 GTexel/s for Intel, and pixel rates are 193.9 GPixel/s versus 15.60 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture differs completely. The AMD part uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth that are system dependent, meaning its memory performance scales with the host platform rather than being fixed. The AMD memory clock is listed at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel part has no dedicated memory clock, listing only "System Shared."

Clock behavior also diverges. The AMD base clock is 1080 MHz, with a boost clock of 2020 MHz and a game clock of 1080 MHz. The Intel base clock is much lower at 300 MHz, with a boost of 1950 MHz. The boost clocks are similar, but the base clocks are far apart, indicating that the Intel iGPU spends more time at low frequencies under light load, while the AMD discrete GPU maintains a higher floor.

FP16 compute shows another difference. The AMD part achieves 24.82 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning no dedicated half-precision acceleration. The Intel part achieves 1.997 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, indicating that its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 throughput, likely due to specialized execution paths. This makes the Intel architecture relatively more efficient for half-precision workloads, although in absolute terms the AMD part is still more than 12 times faster in FP16.

Power and physical design are starkly contrasted. The AMD part has a TDP of 150 W, requires a 450 W suggested power supply, and uses a single 16-pin power connector. The Intel part has a TDP of 65 W, uses no power connectors, and requires no separate power supply suggestion because it draws power through the motherboard. The AMD card measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 19 mm in width, while the Intel IGP has no dimensions listed, consistent with its on-chip nature.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part offers a single DisplayPort 2.1a output, while the Intel part's display outputs are motherboard dependent. The AMD part was released on 2025-12-10, while the Intel part was released earlier on 2024-10-23. The AMD predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega, and the Intel predecessor is HD Graphics-M. Both are currently marked as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D is a high-end discrete workstation GPU with massive compute resources, dedicated memory, and a median performance percentile of 50 across all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is a low-power integrated GPU with a 3rd percentile rank, meaning it sits near the bottom of the performance distribution. The benchmark score of 733 for the Intel part, along with its nearest rivals all scoring within 2.4% of each other, shows that this iGPU is entry-level in absolute terms.

For users who require dedicated graphics memory, high bandwidth, and substantial compute throughput for professional workloads, the AMD part is the only option based on the recorded specifications. Its 32 GB GDDR6 memory, 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 24.82 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are figures that the Intel part cannot approach, since the Intel part relies on system memory and has roughly 4% of the AMD FP32 throughput. The AMD part also offers 48 ray tracing cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

For users who prioritize low power consumption and integration, the Intel part consumes 65 W versus 150 W, requires no power connector, and occupies no expansion slot. Its system shared memory model means the host platform determines memory capacity and bandwidth, which can be adequate for basic desktop tasks or legacy applications. The Intel part's release date of 2024-10-23 precedes the AMD part's release date of 2025-12-10, so the AMD product is newer in the database.

The database does not provide benchmark scores for the AMD part, so performance claims cannot be made beyond its specification-derived capabilities. The percentile rank of 50 is a positional marker, not a measured score. The Intel part's percentile of 3 is based on its actual benchmark result of 733. Any user selecting between these two parts should note that the AMD part targets a completely different performance and power class, and the Intel part is designed for systems where a discrete GPU is not feasible.

FAQ

Q: What is the benchmark score of the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU records a score of 733 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, with an average benchmark score of 733.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has an empty benchmark array and an average benchmark score of 0.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It ties with the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU at 733 points each, scores 1.4% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 6470M (723 points), and trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M by 2.4% (751 points).

Q: What is the memory configuration of each part?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which part has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has 3,072 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has 256 shading units.

Q: What are the power requirements for each part?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a TDP of 150 W and a suggested power supply of 450 W, using one 16-pin connector. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has a TDP of 65 W, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested power supply listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D wins in every compute-heavy category based on recorded specifications. It delivers 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 998.4 GFLOPS for Intel, a 25-fold advantage. Its texture rate of 387.8 GTexel/s exceeds the Intel part's 31.20 GTexel/s by more than 12 times. Its pixel rate of 193.9 GPixel/s is 12 times the Intel's 15.60 GPixel/s. The AMD part also provides 48 ray tracing cores, which the Intel part does not list. Memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s versus system dependent bandwidth gives the AMD part a fixed, high-bandwidth advantage for large datasets. The 32 GB dedicated GDDR6 memory capacity is a feature the Intel part cannot match, since it shares system memory.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 65 W TDP is less than half of the AMD's 150 W. It requires no power connector and no separate power supply recommendation, making it suitable for systems without discrete GPU power delivery. Its Ring Bus interface means it is built into the processor, requiring no expansion slot. The Intel part also has a higher base clock efficiency in the sense that its boost clock of 1950 MHz nearly matches the AMD boost of 2020 MHz, despite the much lower 300 MHz base clock, indicating a wide dynamic range for power saving. The Intel part's FP16 ratio of 2:1 means its half-precision throughput is double its FP32 rate, whereas the AMD part has a 1:1 ratio, so for workloads that can use FP16, the Intel architecture extracts relatively more from its limited resources.

The Intel part also wins on release timing, having entered production on 2024-10-23, more than a year before the AMD part's release on 2025-12-10. For systems where a discrete GPU is physically impossible, the Intel IGP is the only functional option. The AMD part's single DisplayPort 2.1a output limits its display connectivity to one monitor, while the Intel part's motherboard dependent outputs can support multiple displays depending on the host board.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses the Navi 48 chip with RDNA 4.0 architecture, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses the Arrow Lake-S chip with Xe-LPG architecture. The process nodes are 4 nm for AMD and 3 nm for Intel, both fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts are 53,900 million for AMD and 17,800 million for Intel. Die sizes are 357 mm² and 243 mm², respectively. Transistor density is 151.0 million per mm² for AMD and 73.3 million per mm² for Intel.

Clock speeds differ in base and game clocks: AMD lists 1080 MHz base and 1080 MHz game clock, while Intel lists 300 MHz base and no game clock. Boost clocks are 2020 MHz for AMD and 1950 MHz for Intel. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective for AMD, and system shared for Intel. Memory size is 32 GB GDDR6 for AMD, system shared for Intel. Bus width is 256 bit for AMD, system shared for Intel. Bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s for AMD, system dependent for Intel.

Compute unit counts differ: shading units are 3,072 for AMD versus 256 for Intel. TMUs are 192 versus 16. ROPs are 96 versus 8. Ray tracing cores are 48 for AMD, with none listed for Intel. Pixel rates are 193.9 GPixel/s versus 15.60 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 387.8 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 24.82 TFLOPS versus 998.4 GFLOPS. FP16 performance is 24.82 TFLOPS with 1:1 ratio versus 1.997 TFLOPS with 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications diverge: TDP is 150 W for AMD and 65 W for Intel. Slot width is single-slot for AMD and IGP for Intel. Power connectors are one 16-pin for AMD, with none for Intel. Suggested power supply is 450 W for AMD, with none for Intel. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for AMD and Ring Bus for Intel. Display outputs are one DisplayPort 2.1a for AMD and motherboard dependent for Intel. Dimensions are 241 mm by 111 mm by 19 mm for AMD, with no dimensions for Intel. Release dates are 2025-12-10 for AMD and 2024-10-23 for Intel. Predecessors are Radeon Pro Vega for AMD and HD Graphics-M for Intel. Both parts share the same API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.