AMD Radeon Pro 580 vs Intel Arc A550M Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The recorded data paints a clear picture: the Intel Arc A550M wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A550M scores 49,894 against the Radeon Pro 580's 38,457, a 29.7% advantage. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Arc A550M scores 49,580 versus 43,285, a 14.5% lead.

The Intel part also holds a higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests: 49,737 compared to 40,318 for the AMD part. This translates to an 86th percentile ranking among all GPUs for the Arc A550M, versus an 82nd percentile for the Radeon Pro 580.

The AMD Radeon Pro 580 does have one recorded benchmark the Intel part lacks entirely: a Geekbench Metal score of 39,213. This is a notable data point for Apple ecosystem compatibility, as Metal is the primary graphics API on macOS. However, the database shows no head-to-head Metal comparison, and the Intel part wins both tests where they meet directly.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. For OpenCL compute workloads and Vulkan rendering tasks, the Intel Arc A550M is the stronger option according to the recorded measurements. The AMD part's sole advantage lies in its Metal support, which may be relevant only for specific software environments that rely on that API.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing nodes. The Intel Arc A550M uses the DG2-512 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation for Arc 5 Mobile. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 uses the Ellesmere chip on the GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro Mac 500 Series, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

The transistor counts reveal a massive gap in scale. The Intel chip packs 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 53.4 million per mm². The AMD chip has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, with a density of 24.6 million per mm². The Intel part has nearly four times the transistor count, though the die is not proportionally larger due to the denser manufacturing process.

Clocking behavior also differs sharply. The Intel Arc A550M runs at a base clock of 900 MHz and boosts to 2050 MHz. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost of only 1200 MHz. The Intel part's boost clock is substantially higher, which contributes to its performance advantage despite the AMD part starting from a higher base frequency.

Memory technology diverges as well. The Intel GPU uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD GPU uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 217.0 GB/s. Both have the same memory capacity, and bandwidth is similar, but the bus widths and memory generations differ. The Intel part achieves slightly higher bandwidth from a narrower bus by using faster memory.

Memory clock rates also differ. The Intel part runs its memory at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective throughput. The AMD part runs at 1695 MHz with 6.8 Gbps effective. The Intel memory is significantly faster per pin, which explains the bandwidth parity despite the narrower bus.

The compute resource layout shows different allocation strategies. The Intel Arc A550M has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The AMD part has more shading units and TMUs, but fewer ROPs and no dedicated RT hardware.

The result is a stark contrast in pixel and texture throughput. The Intel part achieves 131.2 GPixel/s and 262.4 GTexel/s. The AMD part achieves 38.40 GPixel/s and 172.8 GTexel/s. The Intel part leads by a wide margin in pixel fill rate, a 3.4x difference, and a solid lead in texture fill rate as well.

Floating point performance follows the same trend. The Intel Arc A550M delivers 8.397 TFLOPS in FP32 and 16.79 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 delivers 5.530 TFLOPS in FP32 and 5.530 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part is roughly 52% faster in FP32 and three times faster in FP16.

Power consumption differs dramatically. The Intel part has a TDP of 60 W, while the AMD part draws 185 W. The Intel GPU achieves its performance advantage at less than one-third the power envelope. The AMD part has no power connectors listed, consistent with its IGP slot width, while the Intel part also uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors specified.

API support shows a generational gap. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel GPU supports the newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

The bus interface also differs. The Intel part uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both are end-of-life products, but the AMD part has a recorded release date of June 4, 2017, while the Intel part has no release date in the database.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has an average benchmark score of 49,737, while the AMD Radeon Pro 580 has an average of 40,318.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 580 support ray tracing?

A: No, the database lists no ray tracing cores for the AMD Radeon Pro 580. The Intel Arc A550M has 16 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has a TDP of 60 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro 580 has a TDP of 185 W.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A550M achieves 224.0 GB/s, slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 580's 217.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 580 have a Metal benchmark score?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon Pro 580 has a Geekbench Metal score of 39,213. The Intel Arc A550M has no recorded Metal benchmark.

Q: Which GPU is denser in terms of transistor packing?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has a transistor density of 53.4 million per mm², more than double the AMD Radeon Pro 580's 24.6 million per mm².

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category in the database.

• Process Node: Intel Arc A550M uses 6 nm at TSMC; AMD Radeon Pro 580 uses 14 nm at GlobalFoundries.
• Transistors: Intel has 21,700 million; AMD has 5,700 million.
• Die Size: Intel measures 406 mm²; AMD measures 232 mm².
• Transistor Density: Intel achieves 53.4M / mm²; AMD achieves 24.6M / mm².
• Base Clock: Intel runs at 900 MHz; AMD runs at 1100 MHz.
• Boost Clock: Intel boosts to 2050 MHz; AMD boosts to 1200 MHz.
• Memory Clock: Intel runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective; AMD runs at 1695 MHz with 6.8 Gbps effective.
• Memory Type: Intel uses GDDR6; AMD uses GDDR5.
• Memory Bus Width: Intel uses 128 bit; AMD uses 256 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel achieves 224.0 GB/s; AMD achieves 217.0 GB/s.
• Shading Units: Intel has 2,048; AMD has 2,304.
• Texture Mapping Units: Intel has 128; AMD has 144.
• ROP Units: Intel has 64; AMD has 32.
• Ray Tracing Cores: Intel has 16; AMD has none.
• Pixel Rate: Intel achieves 131.2 GPixel/s; AMD achieves 38.40 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Intel achieves 262.4 GTexel/s; AMD achieves 172.8 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: Intel delivers 8.397 TFLOPS; AMD delivers 5.530 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: Intel delivers 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1); AMD delivers 5.530 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: Intel draws 60 W; AMD draws 185 W.
• Bus Interface: Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x16; AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16.
• DirectX Support: Intel supports 12 Ultimate (12_2); AMD supports 12 (12_0).
• Vulkan Support: Intel supports 1.4; AMD supports 1.3.
• Release Date: Intel has none recorded; AMD has June 4, 2017.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the Intel Arc A550M wins both.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the largest gap. The Intel Arc A550M scores 49,894, while the AMD Radeon Pro 580 scores 38,457. This is a 29.7% difference in favor of the Intel part. OpenCL is a cross-platform compute API, so this result indicates a substantial advantage in general-purpose GPU compute workloads. The delta is large enough that it cannot be explained by minor driver differences or test variance; it reflects a genuine performance gap.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a narrower but still decisive margin. The Intel Arc A550M scores 49,580, while the AMD Radeon Pro 580 scores 43,285. The 14.5% delta suggests the Intel part maintains its lead in graphics-oriented workloads as well, though the gap narrows compared to OpenCL. Vulkan is a low-level graphics and compute API, and the Intel part's newer architecture appears to extract better performance from it.

The AMD Radeon Pro 580 does have a Geekbench Metal score of 39,213, but the Intel Arc A550M has no corresponding Metal benchmark in the database. This prevents a direct comparison on Apple's graphics API. However, the AMD part's Metal score is lower than its own Vulkan score of 43,285, which suggests Metal is not its strongest API in the recorded data.

For context on the Intel part's performance class, the nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti with an average score of 49,957 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 with 50,001 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT with 50,951 (2.4% higher). The Intel Arc A550M also sits 2.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT's 48,477 average. This places the Intel part in the upper tier of mobile GPU performance.

The AMD Radeon Pro 580's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 with an average score of 40,377 (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 with 40,063 (0.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 with 40,870 (1.4% higher). The AMD part also sits 1.9% above the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile's 39,568 average. This indicates the Radeon Pro 580 occupies a lower performance tier, roughly 18% below the Intel part in average score.

# The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear recommendation. The Intel Arc A550M is the superior performer in every direct benchmark comparison available. It wins OpenCL by 29.7% and Vulkan by 14.5%. Its average benchmark score of 49,737 is 23.4% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 580's 40,318.

The power efficiency story is even more compelling. The Intel part achieves this performance at 60 W TDP, while the AMD part requires 185 W. This means the Intel GPU delivers more performance while consuming less than one-third of the power. For mobile or compact systems where thermal and power budgets matter, the Intel part is the obvious choice.

The architectural advantages of the Intel part are numerous. It has a smaller process node, more transistors, higher boost clock, faster memory, more ROPs, dedicated ray tracing cores, higher pixel and texture rates, and significantly higher FP32 and FP16 throughput. It also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD Radeon Pro 580 does retain a few points of relevance. It has more shading units and TMUs, though these do not translate into performance wins in the recorded benchmarks. It has a wider 256-bit memory bus, though the bandwidth is comparable. It has a recorded Metal benchmark score, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

Who should pick which? The data suggests that users who require Metal API support, such as those working in macOS environments, may need to consider the AMD Radeon Pro 580 despite its lower performance. The Intel Arc A550M has no recorded Metal score, so its compatibility with that API is unknown from the database.

For everyone else, the Intel Arc A550M is the stronger choice. It wins every benchmark where both are measured, does so with a wide margin, and draws far less power. The Intel part also sits in a higher overall percentile ranking at 86 versus 82, and its nearest rivals include desktop-class GPUs like the RX 6900 XT and RTX 5070 Ti.

The AMD part is an older design from 2017, built on a larger process node, with lower clocks and a higher power draw. Its only recorded advantage is the Metal benchmark, which is a niche concern. The Intel Arc A550M represents the newer architecture and delivers accordingly in the measured data.