AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs Intel Arc Pro A30M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 and Intel Arc Pro A30M compare in raw compute performance?

A: Based on the recorded Geekbench OpenCL results, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 35,027, which is 9.8% higher than the Intel Arc Pro A30M's score of 31,894. This gives AMD the only head-to-head benchmark win in the database.

Q: Which GPU has higher theoretical FP32 throughput?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M leads in theoretical FP32 compute with 4.096 TFLOPS, surpassing the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS. Interestingly, despite Intel's higher theoretical peak, the AMD card wins in the actual OpenCL benchmark.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing identical 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is also the same at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed.

Q: How do their pixel and texture rates differ?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 achieves 74.27 GPixel/s, noticeably ahead of the Intel Arc Pro A30M's 64.00 GPixel/s. However, the Intel card leads in texture rate with 128.0 GTexel/s versus AMD's 111.4 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for these cards?

A: Both GPUs share a 50 W TDP and require no external power connectors. The AMD card lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M's suggested PSU is not specified in the database.

Q: Which card holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 ranks in the 80th percentile, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M sits in the 76th percentile. The AMD card's average benchmark score of 37,157 also exceeds Intel's 31,894 average.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 demonstrates its strength in actual workload execution. The Geekbench OpenCL result shows AMD finishing 9.8% ahead of Intel, translating its 35,027 score into a clear performance advantage. With an average benchmark score of 37,157 and an 80th percentile ranking, the W6400 lands in the same performance neighborhood as cards like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, which it leads by 1.7%. This suggests the AMD card handles compute-heavy tasks with greater efficiency than its theoretical specifications might imply.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M, despite losing the head-to-head, shows competitive positioning in its own right. Its 76th percentile ranking places it near the NVIDIA TITAN RTX, with Intel scoring 0.7% higher than that rival. The A30M also posts higher theoretical FP32 throughput (4.096 TFLOPS) and texture rate (128.0 GTexel/s), which could favor certain workloads that scale well with raw shader output. However, the database shows Intel wins no benchmark tests against the AMD card, so its theoretical advantages do not translate into measured victories in the available data.

For pixel-bound tasks, the AMD card's 74.27 GPixel/s rate gives it a clear edge over Intel's 64.00 GPixel/s. This could matter for applications that heavily utilize rasterization and fill-rate-dependent operations. The AMD card also carries more ray tracing cores (12 versus 8), which may benefit specific rendering workloads despite the fact that neither card's ray tracing capabilities are directly benchmarked here.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M employs the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture. Both are fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, but their transistor budgets differ substantially. AMD packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a density of 50.5M per mm². Intel integrates 7,200 million transistors into a larger 157 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 45.9M per mm².

The shading resources diverge significantly. Intel fields 1,024 shading units with 64 texture mapping units, while AMD provides 768 shading units and 48 TMUs. Both cards share 32 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware differs as well: AMD includes 12 ray tracing cores, whereas Intel has 8. Neither card includes tensor cores in the database records.

Memory architecture is identical in capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth, but the interface width differs at the PCIe level. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the Intel card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, giving Intel double the bus lanes for data transfer to the host system.

Clock speeds show another contrast. AMD runs a base clock of 2039 MHz with a boost of 2321 MHz, while Intel operates at a lower 1500 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost. The higher AMD clocks partially compensate for its fewer shading units, though Intel still achieves higher peak FP32 output.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several key specifications. AMD's Navi 24 chip uses RDNA 2.0 architecture, while Intel's DG2-128 uses Xe-HPG. The transistor count favors Intel at 7,200 million versus AMD's 5,400 million, and die size also favors Intel at 157 mm² versus 107 mm². Transistor density runs in AMD's favor at 50.5M per mm² compared to Intel's 45.9M per mm².

Clock speeds differ markedly: AMD boosts to 2321 MHz, Intel to 2000 MHz, with base clocks of 2039 MHz and 1500 MHz respectively. Shading units favor Intel at 1,024 versus AMD's 768, as do texture mapping units at 64 versus 48. Ray tracing cores favor AMD at 12 versus Intel's 8. Pixel rate favors AMD at 74.27 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors Intel at 128.0 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s.

FP32 and FP16 throughput both favor Intel: 4.096 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS for FP32, and 8.192 TFLOPS versus 7.130 TFLOPS for FP16. The bus interface differs with Intel using PCIe 4.0 x8 and AMD using PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs also diverge: AMD offers 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, while Intel's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile orientation. The AMD card is single-slot with a 250 W suggested PSU, while Intel's slot width and PSU recommendation are not specified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 35,027 against the Intel Arc Pro A30M's 31,894, resulting in a 9.8% delta in AMD's favor. This is the sole recorded comparison, and it gives AMD a 1-0 win tally.

This result carries notable weight because Intel's theoretical FP32 peak is higher. The data suggests AMD's higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency overcome Intel's additional shading units in real-world OpenCL compute. AMD's 9.8% lead in measured performance aligns with its 80th percentile ranking versus Intel's 76th, confirming that the benchmark result is consistent with broader GPU population positioning.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The AMD card's average score of 37,157 places it 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and 1.3% behind both the NVIDIA Tesla P4 and GeForce RTX 4070, while leading the GTX TITAN X by 1.7%. The Intel card's average of 31,894 puts it 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN RTX and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, while trailing the AMD Radeon Pro 570X by 0.9% and the AMD FirePro S10000 by 1.5%.

The Verdict

The data supports choosing the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 for compute workloads measured by OpenCL. It leads the only head-to-head benchmark by 9.8%, holds a higher percentile ranking (80 versus 76), and achieves a higher average benchmark score (37,157 versus 31,894). Its higher pixel rate and greater ray tracing core count also suggest advantages in rasterization and ray-traced tasks.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M makes sense for workloads that benefit from higher theoretical FP32 throughput (4.096 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS) and texture rate (128.0 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s). Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides double the bus bandwidth of AMD's x4 link, which could matter for data-intensive applications. The mobile-oriented design with "Portable Device Dependent" outputs indicates suitability for laptop or compact systems where AMD's fixed DisplayPort outputs may not fit.

For users prioritizing measured compute performance and established desktop connectivity, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is the safer selection based on recorded data. For those who value theoretical peak compute, higher texture throughput, and a mobile form factor with greater PCIe bandwidth, the Intel Arc Pro A30M presents a viable alternative, despite trailing in the actual benchmark comparison.