AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU. The database lists zero benchmark scores for the AMD part, while the Intel part has one recorded result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733.

This places the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the recorded data are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, both with identical average scores of 733 and a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails by 1.4 percent (score 723), while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads it by 2.4 percent (score 751).

Because the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has no benchmark entries, the database shows zero wins for each part in head-to-head tests. The performance gap between the two is therefore inferred from their architectural specifications rather than direct measurements. The AMD part reports 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel part reports 1.946 TFLOPS. That is a substantial difference in raw compute capacity, but without measured scores for the AMD side, the numeric comparison remains speculative.

The Intel part's 733 score in Steel Nomad DX12 is a low-end result, consistent with its 3rd percentile ranking. The AMD part's 50th percentile ranking, based on its aggregate database standing, indicates it sits near the middle of all GPUs, but no specific benchmark score accompanies that percentile. The data does not support a precise head-to-head statement beyond noting the Intel part's measured result and the AMD part's lack of measured results.

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 64EU uses the Arrow Lake-S chip with Xe-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. Both parts come from the same foundry, but the process nodes differ by one step, with Intel using the smaller node.

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The AMD chip contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 151.0 million per mm². The Intel chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a density of 73.3 million per mm². The AMD part has roughly three times the transistor count and a higher density, reflecting its larger, more complex design.

The AMD part is a discrete graphics card with 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with system shared memory, meaning its memory size, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent. The AMD card connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel IGP uses a Ring Bus interface.

Compute resources differ by a wide margin. The AMD part has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output pipelines. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part also includes 48 ray tracing cores, while the Intel part lists no ray tracing cores in the data. Neither part lists tensor cores.

Clock speeds show different operating profiles. The AMD part runs at a 1080 MHz base clock and 2020 MHz boost clock, with a game clock also listed at 1080 MHz. The Intel part has a 300 MHz base clock and a 1900 MHz boost clock. The AMD memory clock is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective transfer rate. The Intel memory clock is listed as system shared.

Pixel and texture rates follow the resource counts. The AMD part reports 193.9 GPixel/s and 387.8 GTexel/s. The Intel part reports 30.40 GPixel/s and 60.80 GTexel/s. FP16 performance also differs: the AMD part delivers 24.82 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Intel part delivers 3.891 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical characteristics differ as expected between a discrete card and an IGP. The AMD part has a 150 W TDP, requires a 450 W suggested PSU, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and occupies a single slot. It measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 19 mm in width. The Intel part has a 65 W TDP, uses no external power connectors, and has no listed dimensions because it is an integrated solution. Display outputs also differ: the AMD card has one DisplayPort 2.1a, while the Intel IGP's outputs are motherboard dependent.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The AMD part was released on 2025-12-10, while the Intel part was released on 2024-10-23. The AMD part lists its predecessor as Radeon Pro Vega, and the Intel part lists its predecessor as HD Graphics. Both are marked as Active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports clear use-case separation based on architecture and resources. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D is positioned for workloads that demand large memory capacity and high compute throughput. Its 32 GB of GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth suits tasks involving large datasets, such as professional rendering, AI inference, or complex simulation workloads. The 48 ray tracing cores provide dedicated hardware for ray-traced rendering, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

The AMD part's 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than twelve times the Intel part's 1.946 TFLOPS. This advantage applies to any FP32-heavy workload, including general compute, scientific calculations, and graphics rendering. The 1:1 FP16 ratio on the AMD part means it does not gain extra throughput for FP16 tasks, but its raw FP32 lead still carries over.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is an integrated solution with 65 W TDP, making it suitable for systems where power draw and physical space are constrained. Its system shared memory architecture means it uses the host system's RAM, which can be an advantage in terms of flexibility but a disadvantage in bandwidth compared to dedicated GDDR6. The Intel part's 733 Steel Nomad score places it in the 3rd percentile, indicating it handles only light graphics workloads.

For gaming, the Intel part's measured performance is low, as shown by its nearest rivals all scoring within 1.4 percent of its 733 result. The AMD part has no measured gaming score, but its 50th percentile ranking and far higher compute resources suggest it would outperform the Intel part in any GPU-bound task. The Intel part may suffice for basic desktop use or light media playback, but the data does not support it for demanding 3D workloads.

The AMD part's 150 W TDP and single-slot design mean it requires a dedicated power connector and a 450 W PSU. The Intel part needs no external power and no extra slot space. For a compact or low-power build, the Intel IGP avoids the installation complexity of a discrete card. For performance-oriented builds, the AMD card's resources provide a clear advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D offers dramatically more compute resources, dedicated memory, and ray tracing hardware. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU offers integrated simplicity with a 65 W TDP and no external power requirements.

Users who need maximum graphics throughput, large memory capacity, or hardware ray tracing should select the AMD part based on its specifications. Its 32 GB memory and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth are suited for professional workloads, and its 48 ray tracing cores provide capabilities the Intel part cannot match. The AMD part's 50th percentile ranking, while lacking a specific benchmark score, indicates it sits in the middle of the GPU distribution rather than near the bottom like the Intel part's 3rd percentile.

Users who prioritize low power consumption and minimal installation complexity should consider the Intel part. Its 65 W TDP is less than half the AMD part's 150 W, and its system shared memory approach eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM allocation. However, the Intel part's 733 Steel Nomad score and 3rd percentile ranking show it is not designed for demanding graphics tasks.

The release dates also matter for platform decisions. The Intel part launched on 2024-10-23, while the AMD part launched on 2025-12-10. The AMD part is a discrete card requiring a PCIe 5.0 x16 slot and a 16-pin power connector, while the Intel part is an IGP that works with any compatible motherboard. The data shows two different classes of product, and the choice depends on whether integrated simplicity or discrete performance is the priority.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has 1.946 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU support ray tracing?

A: The data lists no ray tracing cores for the Intel part. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D includes 48 ray tracing cores.

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has a 65 W TDP and uses no external power connectors.

Q: What is the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU's benchmark score?

A: The Intel part scores 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. The AMD part has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

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

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D | Intel Arc Graphics 64EU |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Xe-LPG |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 53,900 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 357 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 151.0M / mm² | 73.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1080 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2020 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 512 |

| TMUs | 192 | 32 |

| ROPs | 96 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | None listed |

| Pixel Rate | 193.9 GPixel/s | 30.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 387.8 GTexel/s | 60.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 24.82 TFLOPS | 1.946 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 24.82 TFLOPS (1:1) | 3.891 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x DisplayPort 2.1a | Motherboard Dependent |

| Release Date | 2025-12-10 | 2024-10-23 |