AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs Intel Arc A730M Comparison

Intel Arc A730M and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 occupy different corners of the mobile and workstation GPU space. The database records the Intel part as an end-of-life mobile graphics solution built on the DG2-512 chip, while the AMD card is an end-of-life workstation product based on Navi 24. Their average benchmark scores place them far apart: the Arc A730M averages 45592 across recorded tests, versus 37157 for the Radeon PRO W6400. That gap is roughly 22.7% in favor of Intel, and it shows up consistently in the direct comparisons available.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A730M averages 45592, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 averages 37157. The Intel part sits at the 84th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 80th percentile for the AMD card.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A730M perform in Geekbench OpenCL relative to the AMD Radeon PRO W6400?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A730M scores 70352, while the Radeon PRO W6400 scores 35027. That is a 100.9% advantage for the Intel GPU, meaning it more than doubles the AMD score.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The Arc A730M records 64693 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 39286 for the Radeon PRO W6400. The delta is 64.7% in favor of Intel.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A730M offers 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth across a 192-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 provides 128.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The Intel DG2-512 chip contains 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. The AMD Navi 24 chip has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The database lists both the Intel Arc A730M and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 as end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded head-to-head benchmarks show a clean sweep for the Intel Arc A730M. Out of two direct tests, the Intel GPU wins both, giving it 2 wins and the AMD card 0 wins. The largest margin comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where Intel leads by 100.9%. The Vulkan test narrows that gap but still favors Intel by 64.7%.

Looking at the broader context, the Arc A730M outperforms its nearest rivals in the database. Its average score of 45592 is 0.5% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45384) and 1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile (45152). It trails the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation by 0.8% and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1%. The Radeon PRO W6400, meanwhile, sits 0.9% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37507), 1.3% below both the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37628) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37648), and 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36530).

For workloads that stress raw compute throughput, the Arc A730M is the clear choice. Its FP32 performance of 12.60 TFLOPS dwarfs the 3.565 TFLOPS of the Radeon PRO W6400. The same pattern holds for FP16, where Intel reaches 25.19 TFLOPS (2:1) versus AMD’s 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1). Texture and pixel rates follow suit: the Arc A730M produces 393.6 GTexel/s and 196.8 GPixel/s, while the Radeon PRO W6400 manages 111.4 GTexel/s and 74.27 GPixel/s.

The AMD card does have one practical advantage: power draw. Its TDP is 50 W, compared to 80 W for the Intel part. That makes the Radeon PRO W6400 a lighter load for thermal and power-constrained systems, even though its performance is lower.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. Intel’s Arc A730M uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-512 chip, part of the Alchemist (Arc 7 Mobile) generation. AMD’s Radeon PRO W6400 is built on RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 24 chip, belonging to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series) generation.

Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical. The transistor density is also close: 53.4M per mm² for Intel, 50.5M per mm² for AMD. But the absolute scale differs massively. Intel packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, while AMD fits 5,400 million into 107 mm². That translates into a much larger execution resource pool for Intel.

The compute resources diverge sharply. Intel’s GPU has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units, plus 24 ray tracing cores. AMD’s card has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. In every category, Intel offers 4 times the shading units and TMUs, and 3 times the ROPs and ray tracing cores.

Memory architecture also differs. The Arc A730M uses a 192-bit memory bus with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Radeon PRO W6400 uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6. The effective memory speed is 14 Gbps for Intel and 16 Gbps for AMD, but the wider bus gives Intel the bandwidth advantage at 336.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s.

The bus interface differs as well. Intel connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, while AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The Intel part is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The AMD card is a single-slot design with 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and no power connectors. Its suggested PSU is 250 W.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field. Clock speeds are one of the few areas where AMD leads: the Radeon PRO W6400 has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz, while the Arc A730M runs at 1100 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost. Even so, Intel’s much larger shader count overcomes that clock disadvantage in raw throughput.

Memory size and bus width are starkly different. Intel offers 12 GB versus AMD’s 4 GB, with a 192-bit bus versus 64-bit. Bandwidth is 336.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. The effective memory speed favors AMD at 16 Gbps versus Intel’s 14 Gbps, but that does not compensate for the bus width gap.

Compute rates all favor Intel: FP32 is 12.60 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS, FP16 is 25.19 TFLOPS versus 7.130 TFLOPS, pixel rate is 196.8 GPixel/s versus 74.27 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 393.6 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design differ. Intel’s TDP is 80 W with an IGP slot width and no listed power connectors. AMD’s TDP is 50 W with a single-slot design, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The AMD card has a release date of 2022-01-18, while the Intel part has no recorded release date. The AMD card’s predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega; Intel has no predecessor or successor recorded.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has tensor cores listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the Intel Arc A730M wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A730M scores 70352 against the Radeon PRO W6400’s 35027. The delta is 100.9%, meaning Intel’s score is more than double AMD’s. This test reflects general compute workloads, and the data shows Intel’s larger shader array and higher memory bandwidth translate directly into a massive lead.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows but remains substantial. Intel scores 64693, AMD scores 39286, and the delta is 64.7%. Vulkan performance may be more sensitive to driver overhead and scheduling, but the Intel GPU still holds a clear edge.

These two wins align with the overall average score difference. The Arc A730M’s average of 45592 is 22.7% higher than the Radeon PRO W6400’s 37157. Notably, the Arc A730M’s nearest rivals are all higher-performing cards: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46043) and RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45972) sit just above it, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45384) and RTX 5090 Mobile (45152) sit just below. The Radeon PRO W6400, by contrast, sits among mid-range competitors like the RX Vega 56 (37507) and Tesla P4 (37628).

The biggest win for Intel comes in OpenCL, where the 100.9% delta is the largest recorded advantage. The Vulkan win at 64.7% is smaller but still definitive. There are no benchmark categories where the AMD card takes the lead.

The Verdict

Based strictly on recorded data, the Intel Arc A730M is the stronger GPU for compute and graphics workloads. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (45592 versus 37157), and sits at a higher percentile (84th versus 80th). Its FP32 throughput is 3.5 times higher, its memory bandwidth is 2.6 times higher, and its shading unit count is 4 times higher. For any task that relies on raw compute, texture filtering, or memory bandwidth, the Arc A730M is the appropriate choice.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is not without a role. Its 50 W TDP is 30 W lower than Intel’s 80 W, making it suitable for compact or power-limited systems. Its single-slot form factor and lack of power connectors also simplify integration into workstations with tight space constraints. The card’s 4 GB memory may be sufficient for lighter workloads, and its 16 Gbps effective memory speed is higher than Intel’s 14 Gbps, even though the narrower bus limits overall bandwidth.

For users who prioritize maximum performance in compute-heavy applications, the data points to the Intel Arc A730M. For users who need a low-power, single-slot workstation card with modest requirements, the Radeon PRO W6400 offers a lighter alternative, but it will trail Intel in every recorded benchmark. The verdict is clear: Intel wins on performance, AMD wins on efficiency and physical footprint.