AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs Intel Arc A530M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records two direct comparisons between the Intel Arc A530M and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400, and in both cases the Intel part comes out ahead. The largest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Arc A530M scores 49,735 against the Radeon PRO W6400’s 35,027, a decisive 42% advantage. That is not a marginal win; it places the Intel GPU in a different performance tier for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

The Vulkan result is closer but still favors Intel. The Arc A530M posts 43,492, while the Radeon PRO W6400 manages 39,286, giving Intel a 10.7% lead. Vulkan tends to reflect real-world gaming and graphics API efficiency, so the narrower margin suggests the AMD card holds up better in that specific API relative to its OpenCL showing, but the Intel part still wins outright.

Across the two recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Intel Arc A530M claims 2 wins and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 claims 0. The average benchmark scores reinforce this ordering: the Arc A530M averages 46,614 across all recorded tests, while the Radeon PRO W6400 averages 37,157. That difference, roughly 25% in the aggregate, is substantial for GPUs that occupy adjacent percentile ranks among all graphics cards.

The percentile data places the Intel part at the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD card sits at the 80th percentile. The gap between the 80th and 85th percentile is not trivial; it reflects a meaningful shift in overall standing. For context, the Arc A530M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (average score 46,601, within 0% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 6550M (46,702, 0.2% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46,043, 1.2% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972, 1.4% lower). The Intel part sits comfortably in that cluster, essentially trading blows with those cards.

The Radeon PRO W6400’s nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average score of 37,157 sits near the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507, 0.9% higher), the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628, 1.3% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648, 1.3% higher). The only rival it beats is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530, 1.7% lower). Notably, the RTX 4070 appears in this rival list with a score nearly identical to the W6400, which underscores how the AMD pro card’s average is anchored by its strong Vulkan result relative to its OpenCL deficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A530M wins decisively in OpenCL compute. A 42% lead over the Radeon PRO W6400 in that test indicates the Intel architecture handles general-purpose compute workloads with far greater throughput. Its FP32 rating of 3.994 TFLOPS versus the AMD card’s 3.565 TFLOPS aligns with this outcome; raw shader compute is about 12% higher on Intel, yet the OpenCL delta is much larger, suggesting additional architectural efficiencies beyond raw FLOPs.

The Radeon PRO W6400’s best showing comes in Vulkan, where it narrows the gap to 10.7%. In absolute terms it still loses, but the relative improvement from a 42% deficit to a 10.7% deficit indicates that AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture handles Vulkan’s command and memory model more efficiently than its OpenCL path. For users constrained to Vulkan-only workloads, the AMD card is far more competitive than the aggregate scores suggest.

In terms of rasterization throughput, the AMD card actually leads in pixel fill rate: 74.27 GPixel/s versus the Intel part’s 62.40 GPixel/s. That is a 19% advantage in pixel output, driven by the AMD card’s much higher boost clock of 2321 MHz versus Intel’s 1300 MHz. However, the Intel part counters with a higher texture rate: 124.8 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s, an 11% lead that comes from having double the texture mapping units (96 versus 48). These raw throughput metrics suggest the AMD card may handle resolution-bound pixel work better, while Intel excels at texture-heavy scenes.

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor Intel heavily. The Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s, while the Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB on a 64-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s. The Intel card offers double the capacity and 75% more bandwidth. For workloads that exceed 4 GB of video memory, the AMD card will either fail or fall back to system memory, while the Intel part has headroom. The effective memory speed also differs: 14 Gbps on Intel versus 16 Gbps on AMD, but the wider bus more than compensates.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A530M uses the DG2-256 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 5 Mobile). It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 42.8 million per mm². The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip on RDNA 2.0, from the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series) generation. It is also on a 6 nm TSMC process but packs only 5,400 million transistors onto a 107 mm² die, giving a higher density of 50.5 million per mm².

The Intel chip is more than twice the physical size and carries more than double the transistors. The higher density on AMD’s side indicates a more compact design, but the raw resource count heavily favors Intel. The Arc A530M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the Radeon PRO W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Intel has exactly double the shaders and TMUs, and 50% more ROPs. Both GPUs have 12 ray tracing cores, so ray tracing hardware count is identical, though the underlying architectures implement RT differently.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The AMD card runs at a base of 2039 MHz and boosts to 2321 MHz, while the Intel part sits at 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. The AMD card’s boost clock is 78% higher than Intel’s, which partially compensates for the lower shader count. Despite this, Intel still achieves higher FP32 throughput (3.994 versus 3.565 TFLOPS) because the shader count advantage outweighs the clock disadvantage.

Memory architecture differs in bus width and capacity as detailed above. The PCIe interface also differs: Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x4. For data transfer to the host, Intel has double the lane count, which matters for workloads that stream geometry or textures from system memory. The AMD card’s narrower interface could bottleneck in scenarios where local VRAM is insufficient.

Power and physical design diverge as well. The Intel Arc A530M has a TDP of 65 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics package) with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is designed for laptops where outputs vary by chassis. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is a 50 W single-slot card with no power connectors (drawing entirely from the PCIe slot), a suggested PSU of 250 W, and fixed display outputs of 2x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Intel part is mobile-oriented; the AMD part is a low-profile desktop workstation card.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature sets are identical. Production status differs: the Intel Arc A530M is listed as Active, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is End-of-life. The AMD card’s predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the Intel part has no listed predecessor or successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A530M averages 46,614 across recorded tests, versus 37,157 for the AMD Radeon PRO W6400, a difference of roughly 25%.

Q: What is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A530M scores 49,735 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 35,027, giving Intel a 42% advantage.

Q: How much VRAM does each card have?

A: The Intel Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 runs at 2039 MHz base and 2321 MHz boost, while the Intel Arc A530M runs at 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 still in production?

A: No, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is listed as end-of-life, while the Intel Arc A530M is listed as active production.

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.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the Intel Arc A530M as the stronger GPU overall. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 25% higher average score, and sits at the 85th percentile versus the AMD card’s 80th. In OpenCL compute, the 42% lead is a decisive argument for any workload that relies on that API. The Intel part also offers double the VRAM capacity and 75% more memory bandwidth, which directly affects the ability to handle larger datasets or higher-resolution textures without spilling to system memory.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 remains competitive in specific niches. Its Vulkan score is within 10.7% of the Intel part, which is respectable given the overall average gap. Its higher pixel fill rate (74.27 versus 62.40 GPixel/s) and lower power draw (50 W versus 65 W) make it attractive for scenarios where power is constrained and pixel-bound output matters more than compute throughput. The single-slot, no-power-connector design also simplifies integration into compact or legacy systems.

For buyers who need a mobile GPU with strong compute, larger memory, and active production status, the Intel Arc A530M is the clear choice. For those who need a low-power, single-slot desktop workstation card with solid Vulkan performance and competitive pixel throughput, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 remains viable, but its end-of-life status and 4 GB memory ceiling are significant limitations. The recorded data shows no benchmark where the AMD card wins outright, so the verdict rests on Intel’s superior aggregate performance and resource allocation.