AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs Intel Arc A570M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 and the Intel Arc A570M: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisive in one direction. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 scores 73,514, while the Intel Arc A570M scores 58,239. That gives AMD a 26.2% lead in this specific compute workload. The delta is substantial, and it aligns with the overall average benchmark scores recorded for each part. The AMD card averages 81,995 across its benchmark entries, while the Intel part averages 58,239.

Looking at the broader context, the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 sits at the 92nd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in average score include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X at 80,959 (a 1.3% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 at 79,842 (2.7% ahead), and two NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants at 79,605 and 79,396 (3% and 3.3% lower, respectively). This places the W6600 in a competitive tier where small percentage shifts separate it from some very high-end parts.

The Intel Arc A570M, by contrast, sits at the 88th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 (the Arc trails by 0.3%), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085 (Arc leads by 0.3%), the NVIDIA P102-100 at 58,528 (Arc trails by 0.5%), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (Arc trails by 0.7%). The Arc A570M is essentially in a tight cluster around the 58,000 to 58,600 average score range, with very small deltas in either direction. This suggests its compute performance is well established in a specific bandwidth, but it is far from the W6600's level in OpenCL.

The one head-to-head result is the only direct measurement available, and it shows a clear hierarchy. The AMD part wins the single recorded comparison, and the margin is not trivial. A 26.2% gap in OpenCL performance is significant enough to influence workload selection, especially for compute-heavy tasks. The data does not include any other shared tests, so conclusions must be drawn from this single datapoint plus the architectural specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies and process nodes. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc A570M uses the DG2-256 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, produced on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Both are relatively modern designs, but the node difference gives Intel a slight density advantage in raw process terms, though the actual transistor counts tell a nuanced story.

The AMD chip packs 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip contains 11,500 million transistors on a larger 269 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 42.8 million per square millimeter. So despite the smaller process node, Intel's chip is physically larger and less dense. The transistor counts are close, but AMD achieves more performance per transistor in the measured benchmark.

Clock speeds differ dramatically. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 runs at a base clock of 2331 MHz and boosts to 2580 MHz. The Intel Arc A570M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost of 1300 MHz. That is a massive difference in operating frequency. The AMD part boosts to nearly double the Intel part's boost clock. This explains a large portion of the performance gap in compute workloads, as higher clocks directly translate to higher throughput per shader.

The compute configurations also differ. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. It includes 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A570M has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 16 ray tracing cores. Intel actually has more shading units and TMUs, but the AMD part's much higher clocks overcome that advantage. The pixel rate tells the story: AMD achieves 165.1 GPixel/s, while Intel manages 83.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate is similarly lopsided at 289.0 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is rated at 9.247 TFLOPS for AMD and 5.325 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16 follows the same ratio at 18.49 TFLOPS versus 10.65 TFLOPS, both at 2:1 rates.

Memory subsystems are identical in capacity and width. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth and 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective). This means memory bandwidth is not a differentiating factor. The performance difference must come from compute throughput and clock speeds.

Power and physical design differ as well. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has a 100 W TDP, is a single-slot card, uses a single 6-pin power connector, and recommends a 300 W PSU. The Intel Arc A570M has a 75 W TDP and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors or suggested PSU, and its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent." This indicates the Intel part is designed for mobile integration, while the AMD card is a discrete workstation component.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data points to a clear division of use cases. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins on raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 73,514 versus 58,239 for the Intel part, combined with its higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, makes it the stronger choice for any workload that depends on shader compute or GPGPU tasks. The 26.2% advantage in OpenCL is the only direct benchmark comparison available, but the architectural specs reinforce this outcome: higher clocks, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and higher TFLOPS ratings.

The Intel Arc A570M does not win any recorded benchmark in this comparison. Its wins are zero in the head-to-head data. However, the Intel part does have some structural advantages that could matter in specific contexts. It has more shading units (2048 versus 1792), more TMUs (128 versus 112), and a higher transistor count (11,500 million versus 11,060 million). In theory, this could provide more parallel throughput per clock, but the clock speed disadvantage is severe enough that it does not translate into a benchmark win in the available data. The Intel part also uses a newer 6 nm process, which could offer power efficiency benefits, though its TDP is lower at 75 W versus 100 W.

For mobile or integrated applications, the Intel Arc A570M is the only viable option, as it is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs. The AMD card is a discrete single-slot solution requiring a power connector and a 300 W PSU. So the use case split is not just about performance, it is about form factor and deployment. The Intel part fits into laptops or compact portable devices, while the AMD card belongs in a desktop workstation with proper power delivery.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 scores 73,514, while the Intel Arc A570M scores 58,239. The AMD part leads by 26.2% in the only direct head-to-head benchmark available.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has a base clock of 2331 MHz and a boost of 2580 MHz. The Intel Arc A570M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost of 1300 MHz.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The AMD chip contains 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die. The Intel chip contains 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die. Intel has slightly more transistors but on a larger die.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc A570M has 2048 shading units, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has 1792. Despite this, the AMD part achieves higher compute performance due to its much higher clock speeds.

Q: Are there any benchmark wins for the Intel Arc A570M?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows zero wins for the Intel Arc A570M and one win for the AMD Radeon PRO W6600.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous in one direction. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 outperforms the Intel Arc A570M in the only shared benchmark, with a 26.2% lead in OpenCL. Its average benchmark score of 81,995 far exceeds the Intel part's 58,239. The AMD card also ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile distribution at 92 versus 88 for the Intel part.

The architectural specifications explain why. The AMD part operates at dramatically higher clocks (2331 MHz base versus 900 MHz base, 2580 MHz boost versus 1300 MHz boost). It delivers more than double the FP32 compute (9.247 TFLOPS versus 5.325 TFLOPS) and more than double the pixel rate (165.1 GPixel/s versus 83.20 GPixel/s). The Intel part has more shading units and TMUs, but that hardware advantage is nullified by the clock deficit.

For buyers seeking maximum compute performance in a discrete workstation card, the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is the clear choice. It sits close to much more expensive parts in the database, such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090, trailing by only 2.7% in average score. It also leads the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X by 1.3%. This places it in a performance tier that competes with high-end desktop GPUs.

The Intel Arc A570M is not without merit, but its strengths lie elsewhere. It is an active production part with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. Its nearest rivals in the database are all within 0.7% of its average score, indicating it is well positioned within its own segment. But in a direct compute comparison, it cannot match the AMD part's throughput.

The verdict is simple: choose the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 for raw compute and desktop workstation tasks. Choose the Intel Arc A570M if the deployment requires integrated graphics in a portable form factor and the performance target is modest. The data does not support any other conclusion.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon PRO W6600 | Intel Arc A570M |

|-------|----------------------|-----------------|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 11,500 million |

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 269 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 46.7M / mm² | 42.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2331 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2580 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| RT Cores | 28 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 165.1 GPixel/s | 83.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 289.0 GTexel/s | 166.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 9.247 TFLOPS | 5.325 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1) | 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | Not specified |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2021-06-07 | 2023-07-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 649 USD | Not specified |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 81,995 | 58,239 |

| Percentile | 92 | 88 |