AMD Radeon Pro W6600M vs Intel Arc A570M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M and Intel Arc A570M are both mobile graphics solutions aimed at professional workloads, but benchmark data shows they occupy distinct performance tiers. The Intel Arc A570M wins the only directly comparable benchmark, yet the AMD part holds a higher overall percentile ranking, creating a nuanced competitive picture that depends heavily on the specific workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Intel Arc A570M takes a clear victory. The Arc A570M scores 58,239 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M trails with 56,140 points, resulting in a 3.6% advantage for the Intel part. This is a meaningful margin in synthetic compute workloads, suggesting the Arc A570M’s higher shading unit count (2,048 vs. 1,792) translates into tangible OpenCL performance gains.

However, the Radeon Pro W6600M has a second benchmark result that the Arc A570M lacks entirely: Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD card scores 67,652 points in Vulkan, which is substantially higher than its own OpenCL score. This indicates that the Radeon Pro W6600M is particularly well-optimized for Vulkan-based workloads, potentially offering a significant advantage in applications that leverage this API. The Arc A570M has no Vulkan benchmark data available, leaving a gap in direct comparison.

When looking at average benchmark scores, the AMD part pulls ahead. The Radeon Pro W6600M averages 61,896 points across its two benchmarks, while the Arc A570M averages 58,239 points from its single result. This 6.3% gap in average scores reflects the AMD card’s Vulkan strength, which boosts its overall standing. The percentile rankings confirm this: the Radeon Pro W6600M sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs, while the Arc A570M ranks at the 88th percentile.

The Radeon Pro W6600M’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 8050S (average score 62,108, only 0.3% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347, 2.6% lower), and the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 2.6% lower). Notably, the Radeon Pro W6600M actually outperforms the RTX 4090 and Arc Pro A60 in average score, despite these being larger or more expensive parts. The Arc A570M’s nearest rivals cluster tightly around its score: the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392, 0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085, 0.3% lower), and the NVIDIA P102-100 (58,528, 0.5% higher). This tight clustering suggests the Arc A570M’s performance is well-established within a narrow band.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A570M wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 58,239 OpenCL score directly beats the Radeon Pro W6600M’s 56,140, making it the better choice for applications that rely on this API. The Arc A570M also benefits from a newer release date (July 2023 vs. June 2021) and an active production status, whereas the Radeon Pro W6600M is end-of-life. For users prioritizing OpenCL performance and long-term availability, the Arc A570M is the logical pick.

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, despite losing the OpenCL comparison, wins in overall benchmark standing. Its Vulkan score of 67,652 is its standout achievement, and its average score of 61,896 exceeds the Arc A570M’s average by 6.3%. The Radeon Pro W6600M also has a higher percentile ranking (89th vs. 88th), placing it among the top tier of all GPUs. For applications that leverage Vulkan, the AMD card is likely to deliver superior performance, potentially by a wide margin given the large gap between its OpenCL and Vulkan scores. Additionally, the Radeon Pro W6600M’s nearest rivals include the RTX 4090, which it outperforms in average score—a strong indicator of its compute efficiency relative to its power envelope.

The Radeon Pro W6600M also wins on raw compute throughput specifications. It delivers 7.290 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 14.58 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, compared to the Arc A570M’s 5.325 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.65 TFLOPS FP16. This 36.9% advantage in FP32 and 36.9% in FP16 suggests the AMD card has higher theoretical compute capacity, even if OpenCL benchmarks don’t fully reflect it. The Radeon Pro W6600M also has a higher boost clock (2,034 MHz vs. 1,300 MHz) and a lower base clock (1,224 MHz vs. 900 MHz), indicating a more aggressive clock profile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M averages 61,896 points across its two benchmarks, while the Intel Arc A570M averages 58,239 points from its single OpenCL result. The AMD card holds a 6.3% advantage in average score.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A570M beat the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A570M wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark with 58,239 points versus the AMD card’s 56,140 points, a 3.6% margin.

Q: What is the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M’s Vulkan benchmark score?

A: The Radeon Pro W6600M scores 67,652 points in Geekbench Vulkan. The Intel Arc A570M has no Vulkan benchmark data available for comparison.

Q: How do these GPUs rank among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M ranks at the 89th percentile, while the Intel Arc A570M ranks at the 88th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc A570M has 2,048 shading units, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M has 1,792 shading units. The Intel part has 256 more shading units.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is end-of-life, while the Intel Arc A570M is active. The AMD card was released in June 2021, and the Intel card was released in July 2023.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The Intel Arc A570M uses the DG2-256 chip with Xe-HPG architecture, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M uses the Navi 23 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture. The Intel part is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, whereas the AMD part uses a 7 nm process at the same foundry. The Intel chip has 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, while the AMD chip has 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die. This results in a higher transistor density for AMD at 46.7M per mm² versus Intel’s 42.8M per mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. The AMD card has a base clock of 1,224 MHz and a boost clock of 2,034 MHz, while the Intel card has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1,300 MHz. The AMD card’s boost clock is 56.5% higher than the Intel card’s. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, with identical memory clocks at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

The compute units differ notably. The Intel Arc A570M has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Intel part has 16 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part has 28 ray tracing cores. Pixel and texture rates favor AMD: the Radeon Pro W6600M achieves 130.2 GPixel/s and 227.8 GTexel/s, while the Arc A570M achieves 83.20 GPixel/s and 166.4 GTexel/s.

Power consumption differs as well, with the AMD card rated at 90 W TDP and the Intel card at 75 W TDP. The bus interface also varies: the AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Intel card uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both share the same API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these GPUs is fundamental. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, a design that emphasizes efficiency and high clock speeds. Its 7 nm process from TSMC allows for a smaller die (237 mm²) with higher transistor density (46.7M per mm²). The RDNA 2.0 architecture includes 28 ray tracing cores, which is notably more than the Intel part’s 16, and supports the full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set.

The Intel Arc A570M uses Xe-HPG architecture, part of Intel’s Alchemist generation for mobile. This architecture is built on a more advanced 6 nm process, allowing for more transistors (11,500 million) on a larger die (269 mm²), but with lower transistor density (42.8M per mm²). The Xe-HPG design favors wider shading unit counts (2,048) over raw clock speeds, resulting in lower boost clocks (1,300 MHz) but potentially better parallel throughput in certain workloads.

The ray tracing implementations differ substantially. The AMD part has 28 RT cores, which is 75% more than the Intel part’s 16, suggesting stronger hardware-accelerated ray tracing capabilities. However, the Intel architecture’s design philosophy with more shading units may compensate in rasterized workloads. Both architectures support the same modern APIs, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with current and upcoming software.

The memory subsystems are architecturally similar, with both using 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. This parity suggests that memory bandwidth is not a differentiator between these two parts. The key architectural differences come down to clock speed strategy (AMD’s high-boost approach vs. Intel’s wide-unit approach), process node maturity (7 nm vs. 6 nm), and ray tracing core counts (28 vs. 16). These differences manifest in benchmark results, with Intel winning OpenCL and AMD excelling in Vulkan and overall average scores.