AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

# Intel Arc A350M vs AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700

The Intel Arc A350M and AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 sit at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data makes that chasm explicit. Across the two shared Geekbench tests, the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 wins both, with the Intel part trailing by 79.2% in OpenCL and 61.1% in Vulkan. These are not close contests; the R9700 delivers roughly 4.8x the OpenCL score and about 2.6x the Vulkan score of the A350M. The Intel Arc A350M, however, holds its own against its own nearest rivals—sitting within 1.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 and within 0.8% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT—while the R9700’s closest competitors are older mobile parts like the AMD Radeon RX 6600M and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X, both within 0.3%. This suggests the R9700’s average benchmark score of 23,315 is not representative of its peak capabilities, especially when its Geekbench OpenCL result of 118,202 dwarfs that average.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparisons available are the two Geekbench tests, and the R9700 dominates both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 scores 118,202 against the Intel Arc A350M’s 24,546—a delta of -79.2% from the Intel part’s perspective. That means the R9700 outperforms the A350M by nearly five-fold in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows but remains decisive: the R9700 scores 63,550 while the A350M manages 24,747, a -61.1% delta. The Intel part’s Vulkan score is actually slightly higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the Xe-HPG architecture handles Vulkan workloads comparatively better than OpenCL, but it still trails by a wide margin.

Looking at the Intel Arc A350M’s standalone benchmarks, its average score of 24,647 places it at the 70th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 590 at 24,744 (-0.4%), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile at 24,763 (-0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT at 24,442 (+0.8%). These deltas are all within 1.5%, meaning the A350M is effectively performance-equivalent to a desktop RX 590 or a mobile RTX A5000 in these aggregate metrics—a remarkable positioning for a 25 W integrated-class part. The R9700, by contrast, sits at the 69th percentile with an average score of 23,315, yet its nearest rivals are far older or lower-tier parts: the AMD Radeon R9 M290X at 23,276 (+0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23,273 (+0.2%), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23,250 (+0.3%). The R9700’s average is dragged down by its PassMark scores—155 in DirectX 10, 272 in DirectX 11, 83 in DirectX 12, and 363 in DirectX 9—which are anomalously low for a GPU with 47.84 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. Those PassMark numbers likely reflect a driver or workload mismatch, not the hardware’s true compute potential.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the shared benchmarks, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 wins both Geekbench tests. It scores 118,202 in OpenCL versus 24,546 for the Intel Arc A350M (-79.2% for Intel), and 63,550 in Vulkan versus 24,747 (-61.1% for Intel).

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their respective nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc A350M is within 1.5% of its nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon RX 590 (-0.4%) and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (-0.5%). The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is within 0.3% of its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon R9 M290X (+0.2%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (+0.2%).

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has an average benchmark score of 24,647, while the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has an average of 23,315. Despite the R9700’s lower average, its Geekbench OpenCL score of 118,202 is far above that average.

Q: Why does the R9700’s average score seem low relative to its OpenCL result?

A: The R9700’s average is pulled down by low PassMark scores—155 in DirectX 10, 272 in DirectX 11, 83 in DirectX 12, and 363 in DirectX 9—which are inconsistent with its 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 rating. These results suggest workload-specific driver issues rather than raw hardware limitations.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for these GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A350M ranks at the 70th percentile among all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 ranks at the 69th percentile. Despite the R9700’s superior raw compute, its percentile is slightly lower due to the mixed benchmark suite.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has a boost clock of 2920 MHz, compared to the Intel Arc A350M’s 2200 MHz. The R9700 also has a higher base clock at 1660 MHz versus 1150 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The Intel Arc A350M uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700, by contrast, uses the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 48 chip, built on a 4 nm process also at TSMC. It contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, achieving a density of 151.0M per mm²—more than three times the Intel part’s density. The R9700’s architecture is from the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) generation, while the A350M is from the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation.

Ray tracing hardware differs significantly: the Intel Arc A350M has 6 RT cores, while the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has 64—more than ten times as many. Shading units also diverge sharply: 768 for Intel versus 4,096 for AMD. Texture mapping units (TMUs) are 48 versus 256, and raster operations pipelines (ROPs) are 24 versus 128. The R9700 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (47.84 TFLOPS each), whereas the A350M’s FP16 is rated at 6.758 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio against its 3.379 TFLOPS FP32. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical, but the underlying hardware capabilities are vastly different.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems are worlds apart. The Intel Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s at 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective)—roughly 5.75x the bandwidth and 8x the capacity. Clock speeds favor AMD as well: the R9700’s base clock is 1660 MHz, its boost is 2920 MHz, and it has a game clock of 2350 MHz; the A350M has a base of 1150 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz.

Power and physical specs differ drastically. The Intel Arc A350M is rated at 25 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with slot width listed as IGP, making it suitable for thin-and-light mobile designs. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a 300 W dual-slot card that requires a 1x 16-pin power connector and a 700 W suggested PSU. The R9700 measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The A350M has no listed dimensions, consistent with its IGP form factor. Bus interfaces also differ: the A350M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R9700 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent on the Intel part, whereas the R9700 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a. Production status also separates them: the A350M is end-of-life, released March 29, 2022, while the R9700 is active, released July 22, 2025, with a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega and a launch MSRP of 1,299 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A350M wins in efficiency and mobility. Its 25 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of external power connectors make it a fit for ultraportable laptops where space and thermals are constrained. Its benchmark scores, while modest, are competitive with desktop GPUs like the AMD Radeon RX 590 (within 0.4%) and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (within 0.5%), which is impressive for a part that consumes a fraction of the power. The A350M’s Vulkan score of 24,747 slightly exceeds its OpenCL score, suggesting the Xe-HPG architecture handles Vulkan workloads well. For users needing basic 3D acceleration, video output, and light compute in a low-power package, the A350M’s data supports its use case.

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 wins decisively in raw compute and memory capacity. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 118,202 is nearly five times the A350M’s, and its Vulkan score of 63,550 is more than double. The 32 GB memory capacity and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth enable large datasets and high-throughput workloads that the 4 GB, 112.0 GB/s A350M cannot approach. The R9700’s 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 and matching FP16 throughput make it suitable for compute-heavy tasks like AI inference or scientific simulation, where the A350M’s 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 would be a bottleneck. The R9700 also has 64 RT cores versus 6, giving it a substantial advantage in ray-traced rendering workloads, assuming driver support matures given its anomalous PassMark scores.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is the superior performer in every head-to-head benchmark. Its wins in both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan are overwhelming, and its memory capacity, bandwidth, and compute throughput dwarf the Intel Arc A350M’s. The R9700 is for users who need maximum compute power in a desktop workstation—its 300 W TDP, dual-slot design, and 1x 16-pin power connector make it a dedicated add-in card, not an integrated solution. The 32 GB memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are clearly aimed at professional workloads where memory capacity is critical.

The Intel Arc A350M, conversely, is for ultra-mobile systems where power draw is the primary constraint. Its 25 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it requires no additional power connectors and fits into thin laptops. Its benchmark scores, while far behind the R9700, are competitive with desktop GPUs from a previous generation—the RX 590 and GTX 1630 are within 1.5%—making it a capable solution for entry-level gaming and general graphics. The fact that it is end-of-life suggests Intel has moved on, but the data shows it still holds its own in its niche.

The verdict is clear: if the workload demands raw performance, the R9700 is the only choice. If the workload demands minimal power and physical footprint, the A350M is the only choice. There is no overlap in their use cases, and the benchmark data reinforces that separation. The R9700’s lower average benchmark score relative to its OpenCL peak is a caveat—the PassMark results suggest potential driver issues—but its Geekbench dominance over the A350M is unambiguous. Users should pick based on their platform constraints: the R9700 for desktop compute, the A350M for mobile efficiency.