AMD Radeon PRO V710 vs Intel Arc Pro A60 Comparison

Intel Arc Pro A60 and AMD Radeon PRO V710 occupy the same performance percentile (88th) but achieve it through radically different design philosophies. The data shows a clear split: one card is built for compute throughput with massive memory capacity, while the other targets general graphics workloads with a more balanced feature set. Benchmark results indicate that the AMD card dominates raw processing power, yet the Intel card holds its own in specific areas that matter for professional workflows.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO V710 is the unambiguous winner in compute-oriented tasks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 116,460 versus the Intel Arc Pro A60’s 63,485 represents a 45.5% advantage for AMD. This is not a marginal lead; it is a decisive gap that suggests the V710 is purpose-built for workloads that scale with raw shader count, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput. The V710 delivers 27.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 27.65 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio), meaning it does not sacrifice half-rate performance for half-precision math — a critical feature for AI inference or scientific simulation that relies on FP16.

The Intel Arc Pro A60, in contrast, wins on architectural efficiency and feature completeness. It supports four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it a viable option for multi-monitor professional setups, whereas the V710 has no display outputs at all. The A60 also has a lower TDP of 130 W versus 158 W, and its suggested PSU requirement of 300 W is significantly more modest than the V710’s 450 W. For a workstation that prioritizes visual output and power efficiency over raw compute, the A60 is the practical choice.

Where the AMD card wins: compute density, memory capacity (28 GB vs 12 GB), and bandwidth (504 GB/s vs 384 GB/s). Where the Intel card wins: display connectivity, power draw, and system integration flexibility. The data does not show a single winner across all criteria — it shows two tools for different jobs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc Pro A60 uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a DG2-256 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 6 nm process. It packs 11,500 million transistors into a 269 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 42.8 million per mm². The AMD Radeon PRO V710 uses RDNA 3.0 on the Navi 32 chip, built on TSMC’s 5 nm process. It crams 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 81.2 million per mm². The process node difference (6 nm vs 5 nm) partially explains AMD’s density advantage, but the sheer transistor count — 2.4x more — indicates a fundamentally different scale of compute investment.

Clock behavior also diverges. The Intel chip has a base clock of 900 MHz and boosts to 2050 MHz, while the AMD chip starts at a much higher 1900 MHz base and boosts to 2000 MHz. This means the AMD GPU is running near its maximum frequency at all times, while the Intel GPU has a wider dynamic range — likely allowing it to idle lower and ramp up when needed. The memory clocks differ as well: Intel uses 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) while AMD uses 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), contributing to AMD’s bandwidth lead.

The shading resources are not comparable in scale. Intel offers 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while AMD offers 3456 shading units, 216 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Intel has 16 RT cores; AMD has 54. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API support is identical. The FP16 ratio is a stark difference: Intel runs FP16 at 2:1 (half rate) while AMD runs it at 1:1 (full rate), which explains why AMD’s FP16 score equals its FP32 score.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a landslide. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 scores 116,460 against the Intel Arc Pro A60’s 63,485, a delta of -45.5% for Intel. This means the V710 is roughly 83% faster than the A60 in this compute test — nearly double the performance. The deltaPct value of -45.5% is the largest margin in the entire FACT PACK for any comparison, underscoring the scale of AMD’s compute advantage.

However, the Intel card’s average benchmark score of 60,326 is actually higher than the AMD card’s 58,657. This is because the Intel card has two benchmark results (Geekbench OpenCL at 63,485 and Geekbench Vulkan at 57,166), while the AMD card has two results as well (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 853 and Geekbench OpenCL at 116,460). The Vulkan score for Intel is notably lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting that Intel’s architecture is better optimized for OpenCL compute than for Vulkan graphics. The AMD card’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 853 is a separate metric that cannot be directly compared to the Geekbench numbers, but it indicates the V710 does have some graphics capability despite lacking display outputs.

The nearest rivals data places the Intel card slightly ahead of the AMD card in average score, with the A60 at 60,326 and the V710 at 58,657, a 2.8% delta in Intel’s favor. This is a narrow margin, and it is driven by the A60’s Vulkan result adding to its average. In pure compute, AMD dominates; in mixed workloads, the Intel card’s broader benchmark coverage helps it edge ahead.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification except for bus interface (both PCIe 4.0 x16), slot width (both single-slot), and API support (both DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4). Here is where they diverge:

• Process node: Intel 6 nm vs AMD 5 nm
• Transistor count: 11,500 million vs 28,100 million
• Die size: 269 mm² vs 346 mm²
• Base clock: 900 MHz vs 1900 MHz
• Boost clock: 2050 MHz vs 2000 MHz
• Memory size: 12 GB vs 28 GB
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps) vs 2250 MHz (18 Gbps)
• Memory bus width: 192 bit vs 224 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 384 GB/s vs 504 GB/s
• Shading units: 2048 vs 3456
• TMUs: 128 vs 216
• ROPs: 64 vs 96
• RT cores: 16 vs 54
• Pixel rate: 131.2 GPixel/s vs 192.0 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 262.4 GTexel/s vs 432.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 8.397 TFLOPS vs 27.65 TFLOPS
• FP16: 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 27.65 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 130 W vs 158 W
• Power connector: none listed vs 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs 450 W
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.0 vs no outputs
• Release date: 2023-06-05 vs 2024-10-02

AMD’s V710 has a clear advantage in every performance-related metric except boost clock, where Intel is 50 MHz higher. Intel wins on power efficiency and display connectivity.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory, and why does it matter?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V710 has 28 GB of GDDR6 memory, compared to the Intel Arc Pro A60’s 12 GB. The 16 GB difference is substantial for workloads like large dataset processing or high-resolution texture streaming, where memory capacity directly impacts what fits in VRAM.

Q: Is the Intel Arc Pro A60 better for multi-monitor setups?

A: Yes, the Intel card has 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the AMD card has no display outputs at all. For a workstation that needs to drive multiple displays, the Intel card is the only option of the two.

Q: How much faster is the AMD card in compute benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V710 scores 116,460 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 45.5% higher than the Intel Arc Pro A60’s 63,485. This represents nearly double the compute performance.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The AMD card has a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm², nearly double the Intel card’s 42.8 million per mm². This is partly due to AMD’s smaller 5 nm process versus Intel’s 6 nm process.

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. There is no difference in API compatibility.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60 has a boost clock of 2050 MHz, which is 50 MHz higher than the AMD Radeon PRO V710’s 2000 MHz. However, AMD’s base clock of 1900 MHz is much higher than Intel’s 900 MHz.

The Verdict

The data tells a clear story: choose the AMD Radeon PRO V710 for compute-heavy workloads that demand raw throughput and massive memory. Its 27.65 TFLOPS FP32, 28 GB VRAM, and 504 GB/s bandwidth make it a compute monster, and its 1:1 FP16 ratio is a unique advantage for half-precision tasks. The 45.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL over the Intel card is the single most decisive number in this comparison.

Choose the Intel Arc Pro A60 for graphics-centric professional work that requires display outputs, lower power draw, and a more modest PSU requirement. Its 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and 130 W TDP make it a practical choice for a visual workstation, and its average benchmark score is actually 2.8% higher than the AMD card’s thanks to a broader benchmark profile. The Intel card is also the only one with any Vulkan benchmark result, indicating it has a graphics pipeline that is being tested and validated.

The AMD card is a compute accelerator with no display output; the Intel card is a full graphics workstation GPU with compute capability. The choice depends entirely on whether the user needs to see the output or just process it. For headless compute servers, the V710 is the obvious pick. For desktop workstations with monitors, the A60 is the only option that makes sense. The 88th percentile ranking for both cards confirms they are competitive in the broader GPU landscape, but they are not interchangeable — they are complementary tools for different stages of a professional workflow.