AMD Radeon Pro 5700 vs Intel Arc A750 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall advantage for the Intel Arc A750, which wins 6 of the 9 head-to-head comparisons. The most dramatic separation appears in compute-oriented workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A750 scores 98,554 against 52,787 for the AMD Radeon Pro 5700, a 86.7% advantage. The Vulkan gap is similarly pronounced: 85,631 versus 51,289, a 67% lead for the Intel part. These are not marginal differences; they indicate a substantial raw compute throughput advantage for the Intel architecture in these synthetic tests.

DirectX 12 results reinforce the Intel lead. The Arc A750 scores 70 in Passmark DirectX 12, while the Radeon Pro 5700 manages only 48, a 45.8% difference. Legacy DirectX 9 performance also favors Intel, with 181 versus 143, a 26.6% edge. In the broader graphics composite, Passmark G3D, the Arc A750 posts 12,534 against 11,583, an 8.2% win. Passmark GPU Compute shows the same 8.2% delta, with 5,368 versus 4,961.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 takes the remaining three tests. Its strongest relative showing is in Passmark DirectX 10, where it scores 71 against 65, a -8.5% delta from the Intel card's perspective. DirectX 11 is close as well: 78 versus 72, a -7.7% delta. The G2D test, which measures 2D graphics operations, also goes to AMD with 805 against 732, a -9.1% delta. Notably, these AMD wins are all in older or lighter workloads, and the margins are much smaller than the Intel victories in compute and modern API tests.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all tests, the Intel Arc A750 sits at 20,582, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 averages 18,189. That places the Intel part in the 66th percentile of all GPUs in the database, versus the 62nd percentile for the AMD card. The nearest rivals to the Arc A750 include the Intel Arc B570 (average 20,556, delta 0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (average 20,534, delta 0.2%), showing the A750 is tightly grouped with those parts. For the Radeon Pro 5700, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (average 18,159, delta 0.2%) and the RTX 2060 SUPER (average 18,093, delta 0.5%) are close comparators. The data suggests the Intel card competes at a higher performance tier overall.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Arc A750 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-512 chip, part of the Alchemist generation under the Arc 7 family. It uses a 6 nm process at TSMC and packs 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 uses RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 10 chip, part of the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Series) generation. It is fabricated on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC, with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, giving a density of 41.0 million per mm².

The Intel chip has far more execution resources. It carries 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 112 render output units. It also includes 28 dedicated ray tracing cores. The AMD part has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no dedicated ray tracing hardware listed. These structural differences explain much of the performance gap: the Intel card has roughly 55% more shading units and 56% more TMUs, though the Radeon Pro 5700 compensates somewhat with its higher boost clock relative to its base.

Clock behavior differs notably. The Arc A750 runs at a base clock of 2050 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The Radeon Pro 5700 has a base clock of 1243 MHz and a boost of 1350 MHz, with memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). Despite the AMD card's lower absolute clocks, its RDNA 1.0 architecture achieves higher instructions per clock in some workloads, which explains why it remains competitive in certain legacy DirectX tests.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but differ in bandwidth. Both cards use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. However, the Intel part delivers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD part provides 384.0 GB/s. That 33% bandwidth advantage for Intel aligns with its stronger compute and modern API results.

Power requirements diverge substantially. The Arc A750 has a TDP of 225 W and requires one 6-pin plus one 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The Radeon Pro 5700 is rated at 130 W, uses no external power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of only 300 W. The AMD card is listed as an integrated graphics package (IGP) with no display outputs, reflecting its intended use in Apple Mac systems rather than as a standalone add-in board.

The Intel card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD card stops at DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc A750 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, whereas the Radeon Pro 5700 has no outputs at all. The Intel card uses a dual-slot design, while the AMD card is listed as IGP.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A750 averages 20,582 across all recorded tests, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 averages 18,189. That is a difference of about 13% in favor of the Intel part.

Q: How large is the gap in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc A750 scores 85,631 versus 51,289 for the Radeon Pro 5700, a 67% advantage for the Intel card. This is one of the largest single-test deltas in the head-to-head data.

Q: Does the AMD card win any tests?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 5700 wins three tests: Passmark DirectX 10 (71 vs 65), Passmark DirectX 11 (78 vs 72), and Passmark G2D (805 vs 732). The margins range from 7.7% to 9.1% in AMD's favor.

Q: What is the difference in DirectX 12 support?

A: The Intel Arc A750 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 supports only DirectX 12 (12_1). In the Passmark DirectX 12 test, the Intel card scores 70 versus 48, a 45.8% advantage.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel card has a TDP of 225 W and needs a 550 W PSU with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The AMD card has a TDP of 130 W, requires no external power connectors, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A750 offers 512.0 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 provides 384.0 GB/s. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but the Intel memory runs at 16 Gbps effective versus 12 Gbps for AMD.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Arc A750 uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm process, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 uses RDNA 1.0 on a 7 nm process. Intel's chip contains 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, compared to AMD's 10,300 million on 251 mm². Transistor density is 53.4M per mm² for Intel versus 41.0M per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds differ significantly: the Intel card has a 2050 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the AMD card has a 1243 MHz base and 1350 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for Intel and 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for AMD. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but bandwidth is 512.0 GB/s for Intel versus 384.0 GB/s for AMD.

Execution resources favor Intel heavily: 3,584 shading units versus 2,304, 224 TMUs versus 144, and 112 ROPs versus 64. The Intel card has 28 ray tracing cores, while AMD has none listed. Pixel rate is 268.8 GPixel/s for Intel versus 86.40 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rate is 537.6 GTexel/s versus 194.4 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 17.20 TFLOPS versus 6.221 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 34.41 TFLOPS versus 12.44 TFLOPS.

Power and physical design differ as well: TDP is 225 W for Intel versus 130 W for AMD. The Intel card is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, while the AMD card is IGP with no connectors. Suggested PSU is 550 W versus 300 W. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 for Intel, versus no outputs for AMD. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) for Intel versus 12 (12_1) for AMD. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Arc A750 as the stronger performer in nearly every modern workload. Its average benchmark score of 20,582 places it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Radeon Pro 5700's 18,189 and 62nd percentile. The Intel card wins the compute tests decisively, with an 86.7% lead in OpenCL and a 67% lead in Vulkan. It also wins DirectX 12 by 45.8% and DirectX 9 by 26.6%, and edges out the AMD card in G3D and GPU compute by 8.2% each.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is not without merit. It wins DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 tests, with margins of 8.5% and 7.7% respectively, and also takes the G2D test by 9.1%. These wins suggest the AMD architecture retains an advantage in legacy or lighter 2D workloads. However, the magnitude of these victories is small compared to the Intel card's dominance in compute and modern API tests.

For users running compute-heavy applications, modern DirectX 12 titles, or Vulkan-based software, the Intel Arc A750 is the clear choice based on recorded data. For users prioritizing older DirectX 10/11 games or purely 2D workloads, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 offers a modest edge, though its lack of display outputs limits its practical standalone use. The Intel card also provides ray tracing hardware, which the AMD part lacks entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A750 wins in compute-bound scenarios. Its OpenCL score of 98,554 versus 52,787 indicates a massive advantage in general-purpose GPU compute. The Vulkan result of 85,631 versus 51,289 reinforces this pattern, suggesting the Intel architecture handles modern low-level APIs more efficiently. DirectX 12 workloads also favor Intel by a wide margin, with 70 versus 48 in Passmark. For DirectX 9 legacy titles, the Intel card leads with 181 versus 143, though this may reflect driver optimizations as much as raw hardware capability. In overall 3D graphics (G3D 12,534 vs 11,583) and GPU compute (5,368 vs 4,961), Intel wins with identical 8.2% margins.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins in specific legacy and 2D contexts. Its DirectX 10 score of 71 versus 65 and DirectX 11 score of 78 versus 72 show that older API paths still run respectably on this architecture. The G2D result of 805 versus 732 indicates better 2D rasterization performance, which could matter for desktop compositing or non-3D rendering tasks. These wins are narrow, however, and the AMD card's overall percentile rank (62nd versus 66th) confirms it sits slightly below the Intel part in the broader GPU landscape. The AMD card also draws far less power (130 W vs 225 W) and requires no external power connectors, which makes it suitable for low-power integrated systems, even if its performance ceiling is lower.