AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X and the Intel Arc A350M comes from different benchmark suites, so a direct apples-to-apples comparison is not available in the database. However, the available scores and their positions relative to other GPUs provide a clear picture of each card’s standing.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has a single recorded benchmark result: a Geekbench Metal score of 27,973. This places it at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti scores 28,020, which is only 0.2% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M scores 27,883, which is 0.3% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 trails by 0.5% with 27,839, while the AMD FirePro S7150 leads by 0.5% with 28,117. The W5500X, then, sits in a very narrow performance band where a few percentage points separate it from four other GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 27,973, identical to its single Metal result.

The Intel Arc A350M has two recorded benchmark results: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 24,546 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 24,747. Its average benchmark score is 24,647, which puts it at the 70th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals for the Arc A350M are also tightly packed. The NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile scores 24,763, just 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 590 scores 24,744, only 0.4% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT scores 24,442, which is 0.8% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 24,277, which is 1.5% lower. The Arc A350M’s Vulkan score of 24,747 is actually its strongest result, marginally ahead of its OpenCL result of 24,546.

Comparing the two cards directly using their average scores: the W5500X’s 27,973 is 13.5% higher than the A350M’s 24,647. That is a meaningful gap, roughly the same distance the A350M sits above its own nearest rival, the RTX A5000 Mobile. In percentile terms, the W5500X ranks 3 percentile points higher, at 73 versus 70, which is a modest but real separation in the overall distribution.

The data shows no head-to-head benchmark wins for either card, as the database lists zero wins for both. This reflects the absence of shared test results rather than any performance parity. The W5500X’s single Metal score and the A350M’s OpenCL and Vulkan scores are not directly comparable, but the average scores provide the best available cross-card signal. The W5500X leads by a wide margin in that aggregate measure.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has an average benchmark score of 27,973, while the Intel Arc A350M has an average of 24,647. The W5500X is ahead by 13.5%.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A350M compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile?

A: The Arc A350M scores 24,647 on average, and the RTX A5000 Mobile scores 24,763. The RTX A5000 Mobile is 0.5% higher, a very small margin that puts the two cards essentially on par.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X sits at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Arc A350M sits at the 70th percentile. The W5500X ranks 3 percentile points higher.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X have any benchmark result that is not a Metal score?

A: No, the database records only a single Geekbench Metal score of 27,973 for the W5500X. No OpenCL or Vulkan results are listed for this card.

Q: What are the two benchmark results for the Intel Arc A350M?

A: The Arc A350M has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 24,546 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 24,747. The Vulkan score is 0.8% higher than the OpenCL score.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has a transistor density of 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has a density of 40.5 million per square millimeter.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X is built on RDNA 1.0, using the Navi 14 chip, while the Intel Arc A350M uses Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip. These are fundamentally different designs aimed at different use cases.

The manufacturing process differs: the W5500X uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the A350M uses a 6 nm process, also from TSMC. The smaller node gives Intel a density advantage. The W5500X packs 6,400 million transistors into a die size of 158 mm², yielding a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The A350M packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, which is nearly identical in size, but the density rises to 45.9 million per square millimeter. That is 5.4 million more transistors per square millimeter, a 13.3% density improvement for Intel’s chip.

The compute units differ substantially. The W5500X has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The A350M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The AMD card has exactly double the shading units and TMUs of the Intel card, and 33.3% more ROPs. However, the A350M includes 6 ray tracing cores, a feature the W5500X lacks entirely. The W5500X has no RT cores listed, while the A350M’s 6 RT cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced workloads.

Memory architecture also differs. The W5500X uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A350M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s. The AMD card has double the memory capacity, double the bus width, and exactly double the bandwidth. Both cards run their memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), so the difference in bandwidth comes entirely from the bus width.

The API support shows a key generational split. The W5500X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Intel card also has OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, matching the AMD card’s OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation on the A350M reflects the addition of ray tracing and other modern features in the Xe-HPG architecture.

The bus interface and form factor are also different. The W5500X uses an Apple MPX bus interface and is a dual-slot card. The A350M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), designed for portable devices. The display outputs reflect this: the W5500X has 2x HDMI 2.0b, while the A350M’s outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop implementation.

Specification Differences

The specification tables for the two cards reveal several clear differences.

Process node: The W5500X is on a 7 nm process, the A350M on a 6 nm process. Both use TSMC as the foundry.

Transistors: The W5500X has 6,400 million transistors, the A350M has 7,200 million. The Intel chip has 12.5% more transistors.

Die size: The W5500X has a die size of 158 mm², the A350M has 157 mm². The dies are nearly the same size.

Transistor density: The W5500X has a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter, the A350M has 45.9 million per square millimeter.

Base clock: The W5500X runs at 1187 MHz, the A350M at 1150 MHz. The AMD card has a 3.2% higher base clock.

Boost clock: The W5500X boosts to 1757 MHz, the A350M to 2200 MHz. The Intel card has a 25.2% higher boost clock.

Memory size: The W5500X has 8 GB, the A350M has 4 GB.

Memory bus width: The W5500X uses a 128-bit bus, the A350M a 64-bit bus.

Memory bandwidth: The W5500X delivers 224.0 GB/s, the A350M 112.0 GB/s.

Shading units: The W5500X has 1,536, the A350M has 768.

Texture mapping units: The W5500X has 96, the A350M has 48.

Render output units: The W5500X has 32, the A350M has 24.

Ray tracing cores: The W5500X has none, the A350M has 6.

Pixel rate: The W5500X achieves 56.22 GPixel/s, the A350M 52.80 GPixel/s. The AMD card is 6.5% higher.

Texture rate: The W5500X achieves 168.7 GTexel/s, the A350M 105.6 GTexel/s. The AMD card is 59.8% higher.

FP32 performance: The W5500X delivers 5.398 TFLOPS, the A350M 3.379 TFLOPS. The AMD card is 59.8% higher.

FP16 performance: The W5500X delivers 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1), the A350M 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1). The AMD card is 59.8% higher.

TDP: The W5500X has a TDP of 125 W, the A350M a TDP of 25 W. The Intel card consumes 80% less power.

Slot width: The W5500X is dual-slot, the A350M is IGP.

Bus interface: The W5500X uses Apple MPX, the A350M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display outputs: The W5500X has 2x HDMI 2.0b, the A350M has portable device dependent outputs.

Suggested PSU: The W5500X lists a 300 W suggested PSU, the A350M has none listed.

Release date: The W5500X was released on 2019-12-10, the A350M on 2022-03-29.

Production status: Both are listed as end-of-life.

Launch MSRP: The W5500X has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The A350M has no launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X leads in compute throughput, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and texture fill rate. Its FP32 performance of 5.398 TFLOPS is 59.8% higher than the A350M’s 3.379 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 168.7 GTexel/s is 59.8% higher than the A350M’s 105.6 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s is exactly double the A350M’s 112.0 GB/s. The average benchmark score of 27,973 versus 24,647 confirms this lead, with the W5500X ahead by 13.5%.

However, the Intel Arc A350M has its own advantages. It offers a higher boost clock of 2200 MHz versus 1757 MHz, a 25.2% advantage. It includes 6 ray tracing cores, a feature the W5500X does not have at all. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W5500X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). And it draws only 25 W of power, versus 125 W for the W5500X, making it suitable for portable devices where the W5500X’s dual-slot Apple MPX form factor would not fit.

The choice between these two cards depends entirely on the workload and the platform. The W5500X is a desktop-class card for Apple MPX systems, with double the memory and bandwidth, and significantly higher raw compute. The A350M is a mobile IGP for laptops, with ray tracing capability and a fraction of the power draw. Neither card is a direct substitute for the other in most systems.

The benchmark data shows that the W5500X is the stronger performer in traditional rasterized workloads, while the A350M brings modern features like ray tracing and a much lower power envelope. The 3 percentile point gap in the overall GPU distribution (73 versus 70) is consistent with the 13.5% average score difference, indicating that the W5500X holds a modest but consistent edge in the database’s ranking.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro W5500X wins in: raw compute performance, with 5.398 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.379 TFLOPS; memory capacity, with 8 GB versus 4 GB; memory bandwidth, with 224.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s; texture fill rate, with 168.7 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s; pixel rate, with 56.22 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s; and average benchmark score, with 27,973 versus 24,647. It also has double the shading units (1,536 versus 768) and double the TMUs (96 versus 48). For any workload that relies on heavy texture sampling, large framebuffers, or high-bandwidth memory access, the W5500X is the clear choice.

Intel Arc A350M wins in: power efficiency, with a 25 W TDP versus 125 W; ray tracing, with 6 dedicated RT cores versus none; DirectX feature level, with 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1); boost clock, with 2200 MHz versus 1757 MHz; and transistor density, with 45.9M per mm² versus 40.5M per mm². It also has a smaller form factor as an IGP, enabling integration into portable devices. For mobile systems, applications that use ray tracing, or scenarios where power draw is a primary constraint, the A350M holds the advantage.

The database shows no head-to-head benchmark wins for either card, so the use-case split is derived from the specification and average score data. The W5500X suits desktop workstations with Apple MPX slots, where its 125 W power draw and dual-slot footprint are acceptable, and where its 8 GB memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth can handle demanding textures and large datasets. The A350M suits thin-and-light laptops, where its 25 W TDP and IGP form factor are essential, and where its 6 RT cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the W5500X cannot provide. The 2019 release of the W5500X and the 2022 release of the A350M also reflect their different generations, with the newer Intel part bringing more modern API support.