AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs Intel Arc A370M Comparison

The Intel Arc A370M and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 occupy very different positions in the GPU landscape, and the recorded data makes that clear. The A370M is a mobile-first, low-power part from Intel’s Alchemist generation, while the W5700 is a professional workstation card from AMD built on the Navi architecture. In the two head-to-head benchmark tests available, the W5700 dominates, but the A370M’s compact footprint and modern feature set tell a more nuanced story. This analysis draws entirely on the database entries for both products, comparing their measured scores, architectural choices, and specification sheets to determine where each part genuinely excels.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparison tests between these GPUs, and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 wins both outright. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the W5700 scores 74,613, while the Intel Arc A370M manages 29,676. That is a performance gap of 60.2 percent in favor of the AMD card. In other words, the W5700 delivers more than double the raw compute throughput in this workload, a massive margin that reflects the fundamental difference in their design targets.

The Vulkan results follow the same pattern. The W5700 posts 70,706, compared to the A370M’s 28,673, a 59.4 percent advantage. Again, the AMD card essentially doubles the Intel part’s output. Neither test shows a single win for the A370M; the tally is 0 wins for Intel and 2 wins for AMD. These are not close contests, and the data suggests the W5700 is in a different performance class entirely.

However, the average benchmark scores add context. The A370M has an average score of 29,175 across all its recorded tests, which places it at the 74th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The W5700’s average is 25,726, ranking at the 71st percentile. This is a curious inversion: the W5700 wins the head-to-head tests decisively, but its overall average is lower than the A370M’s. That happens because the W5700’s average is dragged down by its PassMark results, which include very low scores in older DirectX tests (88 in DirectX 10, 104 in DirectX 11, 54 in DirectX 12, and 225 in DirectX 9). The A370M has no PassMark entries, so its average relies solely on the two Geekbench scores, both of which are relatively strong for a low-power mobile chip.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card clarifies their standing. The A370M sits within 1 percent of the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, the AMD FirePro W8000, the AMD Radeon RX 470, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, with deltas of negative 0.1, negative 0.1, positive 0.6, and positive 1.0 respectively. That means the A370M is essentially on par with those GPUs, trading blows within a single percentage point. The W5700, by contrast, matches the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile (negative 0.1), the AMD Radeon RX 6700M (positive 0.4), the AMD FirePro D700 (negative 0.4), and the AMD FirePro W7100 (negative 0.5). So the W5700’s average score is nearly identical to a high-end mobile RTX card, which speaks to its strong compute capabilities despite its workstation focus.

The head-to-head data implies that for modern compute-heavy APIs like OpenCL and Vulkan, the W5700 is the clear choice. The A370M’s advantage lies elsewhere: in its efficiency and smaller physical footprint, not in raw benchmark dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 wins with a score of 74,613, compared to the Intel Arc A370M’s 29,676, a 60.2 percent difference.

Q: How much faster is the W5700 in Vulkan?

A: The W5700 scores 70,706 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the A370M scores 28,673, making the AMD part 59.4 percent faster in that test.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A370M have any benchmark wins over the W5700?

A: No. In the two recorded head-to-head tests, the W5700 wins both, giving it a 2 to 0 advantage in wins.

Q: Why is the A370M’s average benchmark score higher than the W5700’s despite losing the head-to-head?

A: The A370M’s average is 29,175, based on its two Geekbench scores. The W5700’s average is 25,726, but it includes several PassMark results, such as a DirectX 9 score of 225 and a DirectX 10 score of 88, which are low and pull its average down.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A370M is in the 74th percentile among all GPUs, and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 is in the 71st percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 has 2,304 shading units, while the Intel Arc A370M has 1,024. The W5700 also has 144 texture mapping units and 64 ROPs, versus 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs on the A370M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc A370M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation for Arc 3 Mobile. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors packed into a die size of 157 mm². That yields a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The architecture includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the AMD card, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which is the highest tier in the database.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 uses the RDNA 1.0 architecture, built around the Navi 10 chip, and is part of the Radeon Pro Navi generation. It is manufactured on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC, with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 41.0 million per square millimeter, slightly lower than Intel’s part despite the larger absolute transistor count. The W5700 has no ray tracing cores, a notable omission for a card released in a workstation context. Its DirectX support is listed as 12 (12_1), which is one step below Intel’s 12 Ultimate.

The process node difference is significant: 6 nm versus 7 nm. The newer node on the A370M allows Intel to pack more transistors per area, but the W5700 compensates with a much larger die and more raw hardware. The absence of ray tracing on the W5700 is a clear architectural divergence, as is the presence of those 8 RT cores on the Intel side. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API coverage is similar, but the feature set underneath differs sharply.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts in almost every category. The Intel Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 doubles that with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, four times the Intel part. Memory clock is identical at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), but the bus width difference is decisive.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The A370M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The W5700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s for Intel versus 120.3 GPixel/s for AMD, and texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s versus 270.7 GTexel/s. Floating point performance doubles: the A370M delivers 4.198 TFLOPS in FP32, while the W5700 delivers 8.663 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 8.397 TFLOPS versus 17.33 TFLOPS, both using a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical design differ massively. The A370M has a TDP of 35 W and is listed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The W5700 has a TDP of 205 W, is a dual-slot card, requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, and calls for a 550 W power supply. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel, PCIe 4.0 x16 for AMD. Display outputs are portable-device dependent on the A370M, while the W5700 offers 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The W5700’s dimensions are listed at 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the A370M has no recorded dimensions.

The release dates are 2022-03-29 for the Intel part and 2019-11-18 for the AMD part, making the W5700 older by more than two years. Both are marked as end-of-life. The W5700 has a predecessor in the Radeon Pro Vega, while the A370M has none recorded. The W5700 also has a launch MSRP of 799 USD, which can be noted once, but the A370M has no such field.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 is the superior performer in raw compute benchmarks. It wins both Geekbench tests by roughly 60 percent, offers double the FP32 throughput, four times the memory bandwidth, and a much larger memory pool. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the W5700 is the obvious pick. Its 2,304 shading units and 144 TMUs provide a hardware advantage that no architectural tweak on the Intel side can overcome in these tests.

The Intel Arc A370M, however, is not without merit. It achieves a higher percentile ranking (74th versus 71st) and a higher average benchmark score (29,175 versus 25,726), driven by its consistent Geekbench results. It also draws only 35 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the W5700 demands 205 W and a dual-slot cooler. The A370M’s ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support are forward-looking features that the W5700 lacks entirely.

The verdict depends on the use case. For a professional workstation that needs maximum compute throughput and large memory buffers, the W5700 wins without question. For a mobile device where power consumption and physical size are critical, the A370M is the more sensible choice, even if it loses every head-to-head benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 wins in every performance metric recorded in the head-to-head tests. It is 60.2 percent faster in OpenCL and 59.4 percent faster in Vulkan, making it the clear choice for GPU compute tasks such as rendering, scientific simulation, or any workload that stresses FP32 throughput. Its 8 GB memory and 448 GB/s bandwidth also give it a decisive edge for large datasets, and its 205 W power budget is a non-issue in a desktop workstation with a proper PSU.

The Intel Arc A370M wins in efficiency and physical integration. With a 35 W TDP, it operates in a completely different power envelope, allowing it to fit into devices where the W5700’s dual-slot, 267 mm length and 550 W PSU requirement would be impossible. Its 6 nm process node and higher transistor density (45.9M per mm² versus 41.0M) suggest a more modern design, and its ray tracing cores offer a feature the W5700 cannot match. For users who prioritize portability, low heat output, and future-facing graphics features over raw benchmark numbers, the A370M has a clear niche. The data shows a trade-off: the W5700 dominates compute, while the A370M excels at fitting powerful modern features into a minimal power footprint.