AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S and the Intel Arc A310E. Both products have an average benchmark score of 0 and occupy the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. This absence of measured data reflects the extreme disparity in their intended market positions rather than any equivalence in capability.

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S delivers 47.84 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 15.6 times the 3.072 TFLOPS produced by the Intel Arc A310E. In FP16 workloads, the AMD part again outputs 47.84 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The difference in raw compute throughput is substantial enough that no benchmark run would place these two cards in comparable performance tiers.

Pixel throughput follows the same pattern. The AMD card renders 373.8 GPixel/s, compared to 32.00 GPixel/s on the Intel card, an 11.7x advantage. Texture rate shows 747.5 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, an 11.7x gap as well. These ratios align with the respective shading unit counts: 4096 on the AMD Navi 48 chip versus 768 on the Intel DG2-128 chip.

Memory bandwidth reinforces the compute disparity. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S accesses 32 GB of GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus for 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A310E carries 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus for 124.0 GB/s. The AMD card provides 5.2x the memory bandwidth and 8x the memory capacity.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD card runs a 1660 MHz base clock and boosts to 2920 MHz, with a 2350 MHz game clock. The Intel card runs a flat 2000 MHz base and boost clock. The AMD card's boost clock is 46% higher than its base clock, while the Intel part has no boost headroom at all.

The absence of head-to-head wins in the database means the comparison rests on architectural and specification data. The AMD card wins every measurable compute, memory, and throughput category. The Intel card wins only in power efficiency and physical footprint, where its 75 W TDP and single-slot design contrast with the AMD card's 300 W TDP and dual-slot footprint.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S wins in every scenario that demands high compute throughput, large memory capacity, or high memory bandwidth. Its 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 rate suits FP32-heavy workloads such as scientific simulation, machine learning inference, and rendering pipelines that rely on raw shader output. The 32 GB memory capacity with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth supports large datasets and high-resolution textures that would exhaust the Intel card's 4 GB frame buffer. The 64 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced rendering workloads, while the Intel card has only 6 RT cores.

The AMD card also wins in connectivity and interface bandwidth. It uses PCIe 5.0 x16, providing double the lane count and twice the generation bandwidth of the Intel card's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection. The 4x DisplayPort 2.1a outputs support higher display bandwidth than the Intel card's 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

The Intel Arc A310E wins in scenarios constrained by power, space, or cooling. Its 75 W TDP allows operation with a 250 W suggested PSU, while the AMD card requires a 700 W PSU and a 16-pin power connector. The Intel card draws no auxiliary power, while the AMD card needs a dedicated 1x 16-pin connector. The Intel card fits in a single-slot 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width package, compared to the AMD card's dual-slot 267 mm length, 109 mm height, and 39 mm width. For embedded systems, compact workstations, or fanless designs with tight thermal budgets, the Intel card's lower power envelope is the decisive factor.

The Intel card also wins on FP16 efficiency if one normalizes by power. It delivers 6.144 TFLOPS FP16 within 75 W, while the AMD card delivers 47.84 TFLOPS within 300 W. Per watt, the Intel card produces roughly 0.082 TFLOPS/W versus the AMD card's roughly 0.159 TFLOPS/W in FP32 terms, but in FP16 terms the Intel card produces 0.082 TFLOPS/W versus the AMD card's 0.159 TFLOPS/W. The AMD card remains more efficient per watt in absolute throughput terms.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) generation. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation.

Process technology differs by two nodes. AMD fabricates Navi 48 on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while Intel fabricates DG2-128 on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The AMD chip packs 53,900 million transistors into 357 mm², yielding a transistor density of 151.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors in 157 mm², for a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip has 7.5x more transistors and 2.3x the die area, with 3.3x the transistor density.

The compute architecture scales accordingly. The AMD card uses 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 render output units. The Intel card uses 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD card has 64 ray tracing cores; the Intel card has 6. Neither product lists tensor cores in the database.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. AMD pairs 32 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit memory bus and 2518 MHz memory clock, delivering 20.1 Gbps effective data rate and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth. Intel pairs 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 1937 MHz memory clock, delivering 15.5 Gbps effective and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD bus width is 4x wider, and the effective memory speed is 30% higher.

Power delivery and physical design reflect their target environments. The AMD card has a 300 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, a single 16-pin power connector, and a 700 W suggested PSU. The Intel card has a 75 W TDP, a single-slot cooler, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The AMD card is 59% longer, 58% taller, and 95% wider than the Intel card.

API support matches. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs differ: AMD provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1a, while Intel provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.

Production status and release timing separate the products. The AMD card is Active and was released on December 10, 2025, with the Radeon Pro Vega as its predecessor. The Intel card is End-of-life, was released on March 31, 2024, with Xe Graphics as its predecessor and Battlemage as its successor.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S in FP32 compute?

A: The AMD card delivers 47.84 TFLOPS FP32, which is 15.6 times the 3.072 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A310E.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The AMD card has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card requires less power?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S has a 300 W TDP, a 16-pin power connector, and a 700 W suggested PSU.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: The AMD card is 267 mm long, 109 mm tall, and 39 mm wide, using a dual-slot cooler. The Intel card is 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, and 20 mm wide, using a single-slot cooler.

Q: Which card has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S has 64 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc A310E has 6.

The Verdict

The data positions these two GPUs in entirely separate market segments. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S is a high-throughput compute card with 47.84 TFLOPS FP32, 32 GB of memory, 644.6 GB/s bandwidth, 64 RT cores, and PCIe 5.0 x16 connectivity. The Intel Arc A310E is a low-power embedded or compact card with 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, 4 GB of memory, 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, 6 RT cores, and PCIe 4.0 x8 connectivity.

For workloads where compute throughput, memory capacity, bandwidth, and ray tracing performance determine outcome, the AMD card is the only viable choice among these two. Its 15.6x FP32 advantage, 8x memory capacity advantage, and 5.2x bandwidth advantage leave no scenario where the Intel card can compete in performance.

For deployments constrained by power, space, or thermal limits, the Intel card offers a functional path. Its 75 W TDP, no auxiliary power requirement, single-slot size, and 250 W PSU requirement make it suitable for enclosures where the AMD card's 300 W TDP, 16-pin connector, dual-slot cooler, and 700 W PSU requirement would not fit. The Intel card's end-of-life status, however, means it has a successor (Battlemage) already designated, while the AMD card remains active in production.

The choice depends entirely on the workload environment. A rendering or compute node with adequate power delivery and chassis space selects the AMD card. A power-constrained embedded system selects the Intel card. The database shows no overlap in their performance or power envelopes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S | Intel Arc A310E |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Xe-HPG |

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

| 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 | 1660 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2920 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2350 MHz | None |

| Memory Clock | 2518 MHz, 20.1 Gbps effective | 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 644.6 GB/s | 124.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 768 |

| TMUs | 256 | 32 |

| ROPs | 128 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 64 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 373.8 GPixel/s | 32.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 747.5 GTexel/s | 64.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 47.84 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 47.84 TFLOPS (1:1) | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1a | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 109 mm (4.3 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Width | 39 mm (1.5 inches) | 20 mm (0.8 inches) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2025-12-10 | 2024-03-31 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | None | Battlemage |