AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S and the Intel Arc A380M?

A: The AMD part uses the RDNA 4.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process with the Navi 48 chip, while the Intel part uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process with the DG2-128 chip. The AMD GPU is from the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) generation, and the Intel GPU belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S ships with 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A380M ships with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD memory clock is 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for the Intel.

Q: What is the difference in raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD GPU reaches 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 and 47.84 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Intel GPU reaches 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The AMD part delivers over 11 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: How do power requirements differ?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S has a 300 W TDP and requires a 700 W suggested PSU with a single 16-pin power connector. The Intel Arc A380M has a 35 W TDP and lists no power connector or suggested PSU because it is an MXM module.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The AMD card is a dual-slot PCIe 5.0 x16 card measuring 267 mm in length, 109 mm in height, and 39 mm in width, with four DisplayPort 2.1a outputs. The Intel part is an MXM-A (3.1) module with no listed dimensions and display outputs that are portable device dependent.

Q: Which GPU has more rendering resources?

A: The AMD GPU has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 64 RT cores. The Intel GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The AMD part quadruples the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, and has 8 times the RT core count.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S and Intel Arc A380M represent two very different design philosophies and market segments. The AMD part is built on Navi 48 silicon using RDNA 4.0, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process. The Intel part uses DG2-128 silicon with the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. The process node difference alone gives AMD a significant density advantage: 151.0 million transistors per square millimeter versus 45.9 million for Intel.

The transistor counts reflect the scale gap. AMD integrates 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die. Intel integrates 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. That is a 7.5 times transistor advantage for AMD on a die that is only 2.3 times larger. The density difference is a direct result of the 4 nm versus 6 nm process, but also of the more complex compute architecture AMD deploys.

Clock behavior differs as well. The AMD GPU has a base clock of 1660 MHz, a game clock of 2350 MHz, and a boost clock of 2920 MHz. The Intel GPU has a base clock of 1550 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, with no game clock listed. The AMD boost clock is 46% higher than Intel's boost, which compounds the massive shader count advantage.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. AMD uses a 256-bit bus with 32 GB of GDDR6 and reaches 644.6 GB/s. Intel uses a 96-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR6 and reaches 186.0 GB/s. The bandwidth gap is 3.5 times in AMD's favor. The effective memory clock also differs: 20.1 Gbps for AMD versus 15.5 Gbps for Intel.

The rendering pipelines scale accordingly. AMD provides 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 64 RT cores. Intel provides 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. Each of these counts is exactly four times higher on AMD except RT cores, which are eight times higher. The pixel rate of 373.8 GPixel/s for AMD versus 64.00 GPixel/s for Intel is a 5.8 times difference. The texture rate of 747.5 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s is a 5.8 times difference as well.

The physical and electrical designs reflect the intended use cases. AMD is a dual-slot PCIe 5.0 x16 card with a 300 W TDP, a 700 W suggested PSU, and a 16-pin power connector. Intel is an MXM-A (3.1) module with a 35 W TDP and no power connector listed. Display outputs also differ: AMD provides four DisplayPort 2.1a connectors, while Intel leaves outputs dependent on the portable device.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API support is identical, but the hardware underneath is not remotely comparable in scale. The release dates are separated by nearly three years: Intel launched on 2023-01-23, AMD on 2025-12-10.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S is in a completely different performance class than the Intel Arc A380M. Every measurable compute resource is multiple times larger on the AMD side. The FP32 throughput alone is 47.84 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS, an 11.7 times advantage. Memory bandwidth is 644.6 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, a 3.5 times advantage. The ROP count is 128 versus 32, and the RT core count is 64 versus 8.

The Intel Arc A380M is a 35 W MXM module designed for portable devices where power and space are constrained. Its 6 GB memory and 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 place it in a low-power mobile segment. The AMD card is a 300 W dual-slot PCIe 5.0 x16 add-in board with 32 GB memory and workstation-class compute. These products do not compete on any meaningful axis except the shared API feature set.

The production status of both is Active, so both remain available. The AMD GPU has no launch MSRP listed in the database, and neither does the Intel part. The average benchmark score for both is 0, and the percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both, which means the head-to-head benchmark data does not yet provide a measured performance delta. The architectural specifications, however, leave no ambiguity about the relative capability.

The AMD part is the clear choice for workloads requiring maximum FP32 throughput, large memory capacity, high bandwidth, and extensive rendering resources. The Intel part is the only one of the two that fits an MXM form factor, making it the option for portable or embedded systems that require a 35 W thermal envelope. The choice is dictated by the platform: MXM slots require the Intel module, while PCIe 5.0 x16 desktop or workstation slots can accept the AMD card.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 4 nm for AMD versus 6 nm for Intel. Transistor count is 53,900 million versus 7,200 million. Die size is 357 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density is 151.0M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Clock speeds differ across the board. Base clock is 1660 MHz versus 1550 MHz. Boost clock is 2920 MHz versus 2000 MHz. The AMD part has a game clock of 2350 MHz; the Intel part has no game clock listed. Memory clock is 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Memory specifications diverge sharply. Capacity is 32 GB versus 6 GB. Bus width is 256 bit versus 96 bit. Bandwidth is 644.6 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s.

Compute resources differ by multiples. Shading units are 4096 versus 1024. TMUs are 256 versus 64. ROPs are 128 versus 32. RT cores are 64 versus 8. Pixel rate is 373.8 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 747.5 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 47.84 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16 is 47.84 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specifications are also different. TDP is 300 W versus 35 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus MXM Module. The AMD card uses a 1x 16-pin power connector; the Intel module has none listed. Suggested PSU is 700 W for AMD; none is listed for Intel. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.1). Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1a versus portable device dependent. The AMD card has dimensions of 267 mm length, 109 mm height, and 39 mm width; the Intel module has no dimensions listed.

Release dates differ: 2025-12-10 for AMD versus 2023-01-23 for Intel. The AMD predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega; the Intel predecessor is not listed. Neither has a successor listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is no recorded head-to-head benchmark data in the database, and both GPUs have an average benchmark score of 0 with no nearest rivals listed. The performance comparison must therefore rely entirely on the architectural specifications.

The largest single advantage for the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S is in FP32 compute. At 47.84 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS, the AMD part delivers 11.7 times the single-precision throughput. This gap matters for any workload that scales with shader throughput, including general compute, rendering, and simulation tasks.

The FP16 comparison is more nuanced because of the ratio difference. AMD achieves 47.84 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput equals FP32. Intel achieves 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 is double its FP32 throughput. Even with the 2:1 advantage on Intel, AMD still leads by 5.8 times in raw FP16 throughput.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive gap. The AMD GPU moves 644.6 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the Intel GPU moves 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit bus. The 3.5 times bandwidth advantage directly affects texture-heavy workloads, large dataset processing, and high-resolution rendering. The capacity difference, 32 GB versus 6 GB, is even larger and matters for workloads that exceed the 6 GB footprint, which will spill to system memory on the Intel part.

The pixel rate of 373.8 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s gives AMD a 5.8 times advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The texture rate of 747.5 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s provides the same 5.8 times margin for texture-bound workloads. Both derive from the 256 TMUs and 128 ROPs on AMD versus 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs on Intel.

The RT core count is the most lopsided specification: 64 versus 8. The AMD part has 8 times the dedicated ray tracing hardware. The boost clock advantage, 2920 MHz versus 2000 MHz, means the AMD RT cores also run faster, compounding the count advantage.

There are no wins recorded for either GPU in the head-to-head benchmark table, and both GPUs share the same 50th percentile ranking versus all GPUs. The absence of measured results leaves the specification comparison as the only quantitative basis for differentiation. Based on those specifications, the AMD part leads every compute, memory, and rendering metric by a factor of at least 3.5, and by as much as 11.7 in FP32 throughput.