AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro W5700 and Intel Arc A350M occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: one is a 2019 workstation card built for sustained professional workloads, the other a 2022 entry-level mobile part designed for portability. The benchmark data shows a total mismatch in raw compute, but the comparison reveals more than just a score gap—it shows how architecture, memory, and power envelopes define entirely different use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 wins every benchmark where both parts have data. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 74,613 versus the Intel Arc A350M’s 24,546, a 204% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD part scores 70,706 versus 24,747, a 185.7% lead. These are not close contests; they are categorical differences in processing capability.

The W5700’s wins come from its desktop-class specifications: 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A350M, by contrast, has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s. Every architectural resource that feeds a shader pipeline is smaller on the Intel part, and the benchmark results reflect that.

The Intel Arc A350M’s wins are not in performance but in efficiency and feature set. It has a 25 W TDP versus the W5700’s 205 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the AMD card’s dual-slot design and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors would be impossible. The Arc also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and includes 6 ray tracing cores, which the Radeon Pro W5700 lacks entirely—it only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) with no RT hardware. For users who need portable gaming with ray tracing features, the Arc A350M is the only option in this pairing.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 uses the Navi 10 chip built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. The Intel Arc A350M uses the DG2-128 chip on TSMC’s 6 nm process, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The density numbers tell the story: the Intel part packs 45.9 million transistors per mm², while the AMD part achieves 41.0 million per mm²—the smaller process allows Intel to fit more logic per area, but the absolute chip is still smaller.

The microarchitectures diverge sharply. AMD’s RDNA 1.0 is a scalar-oriented design optimized for traditional rasterization, with a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio—the W5700 delivers 17.33 TFLOPS FP16 and 8.663 TFLOPS FP32. Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture also uses a 2:1 FP16 ratio, but the A350M only reaches 6.758 TFLOPS FP16 and 3.379 TFLOPS FP32. The raw throughput difference is roughly 2.5x in favor of AMD.

Ray tracing is the defining architectural split. The Intel Arc A350M has 6 dedicated RT cores, a feature entirely absent from the Radeon Pro W5700. This means the Arc can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads, while the AMD card must rely on compute shaders if any RT effect appears. For a workstation GPU aimed at professional visualization, this omission is notable—but the W5700’s raw compute power compensates in non-RT scenarios.

The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. Both use GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), but the W5700 has 8 GB on a 256-bit bus for 448.0 GB/s, while the A350M has 4 GB on a 64-bit bus for 112.0 GB/s. The bandwidth gap is 4x, which directly impacts texture-heavy and high-resolution workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the largest delta. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 scores 74,613, which is 204% higher than the Intel Arc A350M’s 24,546. This is not a marginal win; the AMD card is more than three times faster in this compute-oriented test. The W5700’s 2,304 shading units and 448 GB/s bandwidth give it a massive advantage when the workload scales across many parallel cores.

Geekbench Vulkan narrows the gap slightly but still shows a decisive AMD win. The W5700 scores 70,706 versus the A350M’s 24,747, a 185.7% delta. Vulkan’s lower overhead helps both cards, but the fundamental resource disparity remains. The AMD card’s 64 ROPs and 270.7 GTexel/s texture rate allow it to fill geometry and process fragments far faster than the Intel part’s 24 ROPs and 105.6 GTexel/s.

The W5700’s average benchmark score across all tests is 25,726, placing it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. The A350M’s average is 24,647, in the 70th percentile. Despite the huge head-to-head deltas, both cards sit near the same percentile tier because the Intel part’s limited benchmark set (only OpenCL and Vulkan) pulls its average up relative to the broader GPU population.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification except memory type and clock speed. Both use GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), but that is where the similarity ends.

• Process Node: 7 nm (AMD) vs 6 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: 10,300 million vs 7,200 million
• Die Size: 251 mm² vs 157 mm²
• Base Clock: 1400 MHz vs 1150 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1880 MHz vs 2200 MHz
• Memory Size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory Bus: 256 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 448.0 GB/s vs 112.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 2304 vs 768
• TMUs: 144 vs 48
• ROPs: 64 vs 24
• RT Cores: 0 vs 6
• Pixel Rate: 120.3 GPixel/s vs 52.80 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 270.7 GTexel/s vs 105.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 8.663 TFLOPS vs 3.379 TFLOPS
• FP16: 17.33 TFLOPS vs 6.758 TFLOPS
• TDP: 205 W vs 25 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs IGP
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a + 1x USB Type-C vs Portable Device Dependent
• Release Date: 2019-11-18 vs 2022-03-29

The Intel part boosts higher (2200 MHz vs 1880 MHz) but with far fewer cores, so the clock advantage cannot compensate for the resource deficit. The AMD card’s launch MSRP was 799 USD, though it is now end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 dominates. It delivers 8.663 TFLOPS FP32 versus the Intel Arc A350M’s 3.379 TFLOPS, and in Geekbench OpenCL it scores 74,613 versus 24,546 (204% higher).

Q: Does the Intel Arc A350M have any feature the AMD card lacks?

A: Yes. The Arc A350M includes 6 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Radeon Pro W5700 has no RT cores and only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Why is the average benchmark score so close if the head-to-head deltas are huge?

A: The W5700’s average is 25,726 across ten tests, while the A350M’s is 24,647 across only two tests. The Intel part’s limited benchmark set (OpenCL and Vulkan) may not capture its weaknesses in other APIs, but the available data still shows a 204% and 185.7% AMD advantage.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has a 25 W TDP versus the AMD Radeon Pro W5700’s 205 W. The Intel part is designed for integrated mobile use (IGP slot width), while the AMD card requires a dual-slot cooler and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The AMD card has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s. Both run at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), but the AMD bus width gives it 4x the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is better for ray tracing workloads?

A: The Intel Arc A350M is the only one with dedicated hardware. It has 6 RT cores, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 has none. However, the AMD card’s raw FP32 throughput (8.663 TFLOPS) may still outperform in non-RT compute tasks.

Q: What is the production status of these GPUs?

A: Both are end-of-life. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 was released on 2019-11-18, and the Intel Arc A350M was released on 2022-03-29. Neither has a listed successor.