AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

The Intel Arc A350M and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent starkly different design philosophies. The data shows a clear split: the Arc A350M wins in every shared benchmark, while the Radeon Pro Vega 16 counters with a unique strength in a test the Intel part does not run. The Arc A350M leads by 34.4% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 13.4% in Geekbench Vulkan, yet the Vega 16 posts a higher raw score in Geekbench Metal. This creates a nuanced picture where the modern Intel architecture dominates general compute and cross-platform APIs, while the older AMD part holds a niche advantage in Apple’s proprietary graphics API.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a decisive victory for the Intel Arc A350M in two of the three available test categories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A350M scores 24546 against the Vega 16’s 18268, a margin of 34.4%. This is the largest gap between the two parts and suggests the Intel architecture handles the generic compute workload substantially better. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the Arc A350M scoring 24747 versus 21832, a 13.4% advantage. These two wins cover the standard cross-platform APIs that most modern games and compute applications rely on.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16’s only win comes in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 29650. Notably, the Intel Arc A350M has no Metal benchmark result in the data, so this is not a head-to-head comparison but rather a single-part data point. The Vega 16’s Metal score is significantly higher than either of the Arc A350M’s scores, which indicates that in environments where Metal is the primary API—typically Apple ecosystem applications—the AMD part holds a distinct advantage. However, this win is isolated to a proprietary API, whereas Intel’s victories occur in the more broadly used OpenCL and Vulkan standards.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Arc A350M sits at the 70th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 16 is at the 68th. This places the Intel part slightly higher overall, but the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story: the Arc A350M averages 24647, while the Vega 16 averages 23250. The Arc A350M’s lead in average score is driven by its two strong showings, but the Vega 16’s Metal score demonstrates that it can outperform the Intel part in specific, API-constrained workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The Intel Arc A350M uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, in contrast, uses the Vega 12 chip based on the older GCN 5.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its transistor count and die size are not listed, but the process node difference alone suggests a significant efficiency gap.

The Intel part employs 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operations pipelines. It also includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD part. The Vega 16 has more raw compute resources: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Arc A350M achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 52.80 GPixel/s and 105.6 GTexel/s, versus the Vega 16’s 38.08 GPixel/s and 76.16 GTexel/s. This is a clear case where the newer architecture extracts more performance per unit of hardware.

The memory subsystems diverge dramatically. The Arc A350M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 16 also has 4 GB, but it uses HBM2 on a massive 1024-bit bus, achieving 307.2 GB/s. This gives the AMD part nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which could help in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. However, the Intel part compensates with much higher clock speeds: a base of 1150 MHz and boost of 2200 MHz, versus the Vega 16’s 815 MHz base and 1190 MHz boost. The Arc A350M also operates at a much lower TDP of 25 W, compared to the Vega 16’s 75 W.

Feature support also differs. The Arc A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 16 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Intel part uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Arc A350M’s ray tracing cores and newer DirectX feature level give it a forward-looking advantage that the Vega 16 cannot match.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for most users: the Intel Arc A350M is the better choice for general-purpose graphics and compute. Its 34.4% lead in OpenCL and 13.4% lead in Vulkan are decisive, and it achieves these wins while consuming only one-third of the power (25 W versus 75 W). The Arc A350M’s higher pixel rate (52.80 GPixel/s versus 38.08 GPixel/s) and texture rate (105.6 GTexel/s versus 76.16 GTexel/s) further establish its performance advantage. For anyone running modern cross-platform applications, the Intel part is clearly superior.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, however, retains a specific reason for existence. Its Geekbench Metal score of 29650 is the highest single benchmark score between the two GPUs, and since the Arc A350M has no Metal result, the AMD part is the only option for workloads that rely exclusively on Metal. This is particularly relevant for macOS environments, where Metal is the standard API. The Vega 16’s higher memory bandwidth (307.2 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s) also suggests it could handle bandwidth-heavy tasks better, though the benchmark data does not directly confirm this.

The percentile data shows the Arc A350M at the 70th percentile versus the Vega 16’s 68th, a narrow overall ranking gap. The nearest rivals confirm this positioning: the Arc A350M sits within 1.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT, while the Vega 16 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA P106-100. Users should pick the Arc A350M for broad compatibility and higher raw performance, or the Vega 16 if Metal API support is a hard requirement.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has an average benchmark score of 24647, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 averages 23250. This gives the Intel part a lead of approximately 6% across all available benchmarks.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 win any benchmark against the Intel Arc A350M?

A: The Vega 16 does not win in any head-to-head comparison, as the shared benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan) are both won by the Arc A350M. However, the Vega 16 scores 29650 in Geekbench Metal, a test the Arc A350M does not have a result for.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 has a memory bandwidth of 307.2 GB/s using HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, while the Intel Arc A350M has 112.0 GB/s using GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The Vega 16’s bandwidth is approximately 2.7 times higher.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the Intel Arc A350M includes ray tracing cores, with 6 dedicated RT cores. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 has no ray tracing hardware listed in its specifications.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has a TDP of 25 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 has a TDP of 75 W. The Intel part achieves higher benchmark scores while drawing one-third of the power.

Q: What are the DirectX feature level differences?

A: The Intel Arc A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). This means the Intel part supports the latest DirectX features, including ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test provides the clearest performance separation. The Intel Arc A350M scores 24546, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 18268. This 34.4% delta is the largest margin in any shared benchmark and indicates that the Intel architecture is far more efficient at executing OpenCL compute workloads. The Vega 16’s lower clock speeds (815 MHz base, 1190 MHz boost) likely contribute to this deficit, as do its older GCN 5.0 instruction scheduling capabilities. The Arc A350M’s 768 shading units, despite being fewer than the Vega 16’s 1024, still deliver higher throughput due to their higher clocks and newer architecture.

The Geekbench Vulkan test narrows the gap but still favors Intel. The Arc A350M scores 24747 versus the Vega 16’s 21832, a 13.4% difference. This result is notable because Vulkan is a low-level API that can expose architectural inefficiencies. The Intel part’s lead here suggests that its Xe-HPG architecture handles draw calls and command buffers more efficiently than GCN 5.0. The Vega 16’s higher memory bandwidth (307.2 GB/s) does not translate into a Vulkan win, indicating that bandwidth alone is not sufficient to overcome the Intel part’s architectural advantages.

The Geekbench Metal result is the outlier. The Vega 16 scores 29650, which is 20.7% higher than the Arc A350M’s best score of 24747. However, since the Arc A350M has no Metal benchmark, this cannot be treated as a direct comparison. The Vega 16’s Metal performance is likely tied to its AMD roots, as AMD GPUs have historically been well-optimized for Apple’s API. This score alone does not change the overall verdict, but it does carve out a specific use case where the older AMD part is the only viable option.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Intel Arc A350M is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, whereas the AMD chip’s transistor count and die size are not listed. The Arc A350M has a base clock of 1150 MHz and boost clock of 2200 MHz, against the Vega 16’s 815 MHz base and 1190 MHz boost. Memory speeds also differ: the Intel part runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective GDDR6, while the AMD part runs at 1200 MHz with 2.4 Gbps effective HBM2.

The compute resources show a trade-off between quantity and efficiency. The Vega 16 has more shading units (1024 versus 768), more TMUs (64 versus 48), and more ROPs (32 versus 24). However, the Arc A350M achieves higher pixel rate (52.80 GPixel/s versus 38.08 GPixel/s) and texture rate (105.6 GTexel/s versus 76.16 GTexel/s). The Intel part also has 6 RT cores, while the AMD part has none. FP32 performance favors Intel: 3.379 TFLOPS versus 2.437 TFLOPS. FP16 performance follows the same pattern: 6.758 TFLOPS versus 4.874 TFLOPS.

The memory bus widths are polar opposites: the Arc A350M uses a 64-bit bus, while the Vega 16 uses a 1024-bit bus. This leads to the bandwidth disparity (112.0 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s). Power consumption is a major differentiator: 25 W TDP for Intel versus 75 W for AMD. Both use an IGP slot width and have portable device-dependent display outputs. The bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel, PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Intel Arc A350M was released on 2022-03-29, while the Vega 16 came earlier on 2018-11-13.