AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs Intel Arc A750 Comparison

Intel Arc A750 versus AMD Radeon Pro 460 is a study in generational extremes. The A750 is a desktop discrete card from Intel's Alchemist generation, while the Pro 460 is a low-power mobile-class part from AMD's GCN 4.0 era, originally designed for Macs. The benchmark database shows a massive performance gulf, driven by fundamental architectural and specification differences. This analysis breaks down the recorded data, comparing scores, hardware configurations, and the implications for each product's intended use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results are unambiguous. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A750 scores 98,554, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 15,284. This gives the Intel card a 544.8% advantage. This is not a modest lead; it is a complete annihilation in compute throughput, reflecting the A750's far higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth.

Similarly, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Arc A750 records 85,631 points against the Pro 460's 16,816. The delta here is 409.2% in favor of Intel. Vulkan results often scale with raw shader throughput and memory subsystem performance, both of which heavily favor the A750. The database attributes 2 wins to the Intel card and 0 to the AMD part, which accurately summarizes the head-to-head data.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages reinforces this trend. The Arc A750 has an average benchmark score of 20,582 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc B570 (average 20,556, a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (average 20,534, a 0.2% difference). This indicates the A750 sits in a competitive mid-range desktop and high-end mobile performance tier.

The Radeon Pro 460, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 17,509, placing it in the 61st percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (average 17,468, a 0.2% difference) and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (average 17,551, a -0.2% difference). While the percentiles are relatively close, the absolute average score gap is substantial. The Pro 460's average is roughly 15% lower than the A750's, but the head-to-head results show the gap can exceed 500% in specific compute-heavy APIs.

The individual benchmark suite further illustrates the A750's breadth. In Passmark G3D, it scores 12,534, and in Passmark GPU Compute, it scores 5,368. The Pro 460 has no corresponding direct comparison in these tests, but its Geekbench Metal score of 20,426 (a test the A750 does not have) suggests it is a capable part for its intended low-power niche. However, the data makes clear that in raw OpenCL and Vulkan performance, the Intel card is in a different league entirely.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards is vast. The Intel Arc A750 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4 million per square millimeter. This is a modern, density-optimized design. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The process node difference alone (6 nm versus 14 nm) explains much of the efficiency and performance gap.

Core configurations are equally divergent. The Arc A750 features 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 112 raster output units. It also includes 28 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Radeon Pro 460, which has no RT cores listed. The Pro 460 has just 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 3.5x advantage in shader count for Intel directly translates into the massive FP32 throughput difference: the A750 delivers 17.20 TFLOPS versus the Pro 460's 1.858 TFLOPS. Even in FP16, the A750's 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1 rate) dwarfs the Pro 460's 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1 rate).

Memory subsystems tell a similar story. The Arc A750 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, achieving 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 460 is limited to 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing only 81.28 GB/s. This is a 6.3x bandwidth deficit for AMD. The A750's memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, while the Pro 460 runs at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective. This memory disparity severely limits the Pro 460 in any bandwidth-sensitive workload, including modern gaming and compute tasks.

Clock speeds also favor Intel, though less dramatically. The Arc A750 has a base clock of 2050 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz. The Radeon Pro 460 has a base of 850 MHz and a boost of 907 MHz. The A750's boost clock is more than 2.6x higher. The power envelopes reflect this: the A750 is a 225 W dual-slot card requiring a 550 W power supply, while the Pro 460 is a 35 W IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The A750 is designed for a desktop tower with discrete power delivery; the Pro 460 is soldered into portable devices.

API support shows another divergence. The Arc A750 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The DirectX 12_2 feature level on Intel enables hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders, which the AMD part cannot offer. The bus interface also differs: the A750 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Pro 460 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the available lanes and using an older standard.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A750 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 20,582 compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 460's 17,509. The A750 also holds a higher percentile rank at 66 versus the Pro 460's 61.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Intel Arc A750 scores 98,554 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 544.8% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 460's score of 15,284. This is the largest recorded delta between the two cards.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 460 support ray tracing?

A: No. The database lists no ray tracing cores for the AMD Radeon Pro 460. The Intel Arc A750, in contrast, includes 28 dedicated RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Arc A750 has a memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s using GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 offers 81.28 GB/s with GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Intel's card has over 6 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc A750 has a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a boost clock of just 907 MHz, which is less than half of Intel's figure.

Q: Are these cards comparable in power requirements?

A: No. The Intel Arc A750 has a TDP of 225 W and requires a 550 W power supply along with a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a TDP of just 35 W, uses no power connectors, and is classified as an IGP for portable devices.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Arc A750 is the overwhelmingly faster GPU for compute-heavy and gaming workloads. Its 544.8% lead in OpenCL and 409.2% lead in Vulkan are decisive. The A750's 28 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it a viable option for modern ray-traced titles, while the Pro 460 lacks this hardware entirely. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 4 GB GDDR5 with 81.28 GB/s means the Intel card can handle high-resolution textures and large datasets far more effectively.

For a desktop user seeking a discrete GPU for gaming, content creation, or general compute, the Arc A750 is the only logical choice from this pair. Its average score of 20,582 positions it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile in overall performance, making it a mid-range contender. The Radeon Pro 460, with its 35 W TDP and IGP classification, is not designed for such tasks.

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a specific niche: ultra-low-power, portable systems. Its 35 W power draw and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for thin laptops or all-in-one Macs where space and thermal limits are extreme. Its Geekbench Metal score of 20,426 shows it is not useless for basic graphics acceleration, but it cannot compete with the A750's raw throughput. The Pro 460's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40c and AMD Radeon Pro 560, all of which are older or lower-end parts.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the Radeon Pro 460 outperforms the Arc A750. The choice is not about preference but about system constraints. If the system can accommodate a dual-slot, 225 W card with PCIe 4.0, the Arc A750 is superior in every benchmark. If the system is a portable device with a 35 W thermal budget, the Radeon Pro 460 is the only viable option, but its performance is strictly limited by its architecture and memory. The verdict is clear: the Intel Arc A750 is the performance king, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 serves only the most power-restricted environments.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the Intel Arc A750 and AMD Radeon Pro 460 are extensive. The Intel card uses the DG2-512 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process, while AMD uses the Baffin chip on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. Transistor counts are 21,700 million versus 3,000 million, and die sizes are 406 mm² versus 123 mm². The A750's base clock is 2050 MHz and boost is 2400 MHz, against the Pro 460's 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost.

Memory configs diverge sharply: the A750 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Pro 460 has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The A750 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, plus 28 RT cores; the Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs with no RT cores. Pixel rates are 268.8 GPixel/s for Intel versus 14.51 GPixel/s for AMD, and texture rates are 537.6 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance is 17.20 TFLOPS for the A750 versus 1.858 TFLOPS for the Pro 460. FP16 is 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel versus 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) for AMD. Power draw is 225 W versus 35 W. The Intel card is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, requiring a 550 W PSU; the AMD card is an IGP with no connectors. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 for Intel, versus portable device dependent for AMD. API support differs: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.3. The A750 was released in October 2022 with a launch MSRP of 289 USD; the Pro 460 was released in October 2016 with no launch MSRP recorded.