AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo vs Intel Arc A770 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo and Intel Arc A770 occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, yet the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy. The Radeon Pro W6800X Duo, a professional Mac-focused card, leads in both shared compute tests, while the Arc A770, a consumer-oriented Alchemist part, counters with a higher raw FP32 throughput and a significantly lower launch MSRP. The database shows the AMD card holds a 33.2% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan and a 13.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, but the Intel card’s 19.66 TFLOPS FP32 rating surpasses the AMD’s 15.11 TFLOPS, hinting at architectural trade-offs that merit closer inspection.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs share only two benchmark results in the database, and both favor the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo decisively. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card scores 125,622 against the Intel Arc A770’s 94,284, a delta of 33.2%. This is a substantial margin, suggesting the RDNA 2 architecture in the W6800X Duo handles Vulkan workloads with notably greater efficiency than Intel’s Xe-HPG implementation. The OpenCL test shows a narrower but still meaningful gap: the AMD records 124,335 versus the Intel’s 109,175, a 13.9% advantage. These results indicate that for cross-platform compute tasks, the W6800X Duo is the stronger performer, though the Arc A770 remains competitive in OpenCL relative to its lower position in the overall percentile ranking.

Interestingly, the Arc A770’s theoretical FP32 output of 19.66 TFLOPS exceeds the W6800X Duo’s 15.11 TFLOPS by roughly 30%, yet this does not translate into benchmark victories. The discrepancy implies that raw shader throughput is not the sole determinant of real-world performance in these tests. The AMD card’s 60 ray tracing cores and 3840 shading units, paired with its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, may contribute to its efficiency in Vulkan and OpenCL, despite the Intel card having more shading units (4096) and a higher pixel rate (307.2 GPixel/s vs. 188.8 GPixel/s). The data suggests that driver maturity, memory subsystem design, or workload characteristics play a larger role than clock-for-clock FP32 capability.

The lack of a DirectX benchmark in the shared set limits the comparison, but the available numbers point to AMD’s dominance in general-purpose compute. The W6800X Duo’s average benchmark score of 135,774 places it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A770’s average of 68,809 sits in the 90th percentile. This gap of nearly 97% in average score is staggering, though it likely reflects the different benchmark suites each card was tested with. The AMD card’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon PRO V620, scores 136,472 (0.5% higher), while the Intel card’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA CMP 90HX, scores 69,000 (0.3% lower), showing how each card clusters within its own performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench Vulkan test and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo wins with a score of 125,622, beating the Intel Arc A770’s 94,284 by 33.2%.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo has an average benchmark score of 135,774, while the Intel Arc A770 averages 68,809, putting the AMD card 96.9% higher overall.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD card has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel card has 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus and identical 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo has a launch MSRP of 4,999 USD, while the Intel Arc A770 has a launch MSRP of 329 USD.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The Intel Arc A770 rates 19.66 TFLOPS FP32, which is higher than the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo’s 15.11 TFLOPS, despite losing both shared benchmarks.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD card has a TDP of 400 W with a suggested PSU of 800 W, while the Intel card has a TDP of 225 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo for users prioritizing compute performance in Vulkan and OpenCL workloads. Its 33.2% Vulkan lead and 13.9% OpenCL lead over the Intel Arc A770 are decisive, and its 96th percentile ranking versus the Intel’s 90th percentile reinforces its position as the higher-tier product. The AMD card’s 32 GB memory capacity, double the Intel’s 16 GB, also provides a practical advantage for large datasets or multi-application workflows. However, the Intel Arc A770 is not without merit: its 19.66 TFLOPS FP32 rating, 307.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 614.4 GTexel/s texture rate outclass the AMD card’s corresponding figures, suggesting it may excel in rasterization-heavy tasks that do not appear in the shared benchmark set. The Intel card’s 225 W TDP and dual-slot design also make it a more manageable installation for standard systems, whereas the AMD card demands a quad-slot footprint and an 800 W PSU.

For a professional Mac environment, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo is the obvious choice, given its Apple MPX bus interface and Thunderbolt outputs. For a general-purpose PCIe 4.0 x16 desktop, the Intel Arc A770 offers a compelling mix of high shader throughput and modern features at a far lower launch MSRP. The database shows no benchmark wins for the Intel card, but the theoretical compute advantage suggests it may outperform in specific scenarios not covered by the recorded tests. Ultimately, users who need maximum compute in shared APIs should pick the AMD, while those who value raw FP32 capability and lower system requirements should consider the Intel.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every major specification. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo uses a Navi 21 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm TSMC process, packing 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. The Intel Arc A770 uses a DG2-512 chip on Xe-HPG architecture with a 6 nm TSMC process, containing 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. The Intel card has a higher transistor density at 53.4M per mm² versus the AMD’s 51.5M per mm². Clock speeds differ notably: the AMD runs at 1800 MHz base and 1967 MHz boost, while the Intel runs at 2100 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. Memory capacity is the biggest split, with 32 GB on the AMD and 16 GB on the Intel, though both use GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, while the Intel has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. Ray tracing cores also differ: 60 on the AMD versus 32 on the Intel. Pixel and texture rates favor the Intel (307.2 GPixel/s and 614.4 GTexel/s) over the AMD (188.8 GPixel/s and 472.1 GTexel/s), yet FP32 and FP16 favor the Intel as well (19.66 vs. 15.11 TFLOPS and 39.32 vs. 30.21 TFLOPS). Power consumption is a major differentiator: the AMD draws 400 W TDP with an 800 W suggested PSU, while the Intel draws 225 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU. The AMD uses an Apple MPX bus interface and quad-slot width, whereas the Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and dual-slot width. Display outputs also differ, with the AMD offering 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt, and the Intel offering 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0. The AMD’s dimensions are 267 mm length and 120 mm height, while the Intel’s dimensions are not recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. AMD’s RDNA 2.0, built on a 7 nm process, is a proven gaming and compute architecture with 60 dedicated ray tracing cores and a 2:1 FP16 ratio. Intel’s Xe-HPG, built on a 6 nm process, is a newer design with 32 ray tracing cores and a higher transistor density, suggesting a more compact layout. The AMD card’s 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die gives it a lower density (51.5M per mm²) than the Intel’s 21,700 million on 406 mm² (53.4M per mm²). This density difference may explain the Intel’s higher clock speeds (2400 MHz boost vs. 1967 MHz), even though the AMD has a larger memory pool. The AMD’s 60 ray tracing cores versus the Intel’s 32 suggest AMD invested more heavily in RT acceleration, which could benefit future workloads. The Intel card’s 4096 shading units and 128 ROPs outnumber the AMD’s 3840 and 96, respectively, yet the AMD still wins the compute benchmarks, indicating that architecture efficiency, not just unit counts, drives performance. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator. The AMD’s Apple MPX interface ties it to Apple’s ecosystem, while the Intel’s PCIe 4.0 x16 is universal, reflecting their intended markets. The AMD’s 400 W TDP and quad-slot design imply a workstation-class thermal solution, whereas the Intel’s 225 W and dual-slot form factor targets standard desktop cases.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo wins in compute benchmarks: Geekbench Vulkan (125,622 vs. 94,284, 33.2% ahead) and Geekbench OpenCL (124,335 vs. 109,175, 13.9% ahead). It also wins on memory capacity (32 GB vs. 16 GB), ray tracing cores (60 vs. 32), and overall percentile ranking (96th vs. 90th). Its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth matches the Intel, but the larger memory pool gives it an edge for large-scale compute or rendering tasks. The AMD’s Apple MPX interface and Thunderbolt outputs make it the only choice for Mac Pro systems, and its 800 W suggested PSU indicates it targets high-end workstations.

The Intel Arc A770 wins on raw compute metrics: FP32 (19.66 TFLOPS vs. 15.11 TFLOPS), FP16 (39.32 TFLOPS vs. 30.21 TFLOPS), pixel rate (307.2 GPixel/s vs. 188.8 GPixel/s), and texture rate (614.4 GTexel/s vs. 472.1 GTexel/s). It also wins on power efficiency (225 W TDP vs. 400 W) and physical footprint (dual-slot vs. quad-slot), making it easier to install in standard systems. Its 2400 MHz boost clock and 2100 MHz base clock are both higher than the AMD’s, and its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface is more common than Apple MPX. The Intel card’s 3x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs offer modern display connectivity, while the AMD’s 4x Thunderbolt provides daisy-chaining options. For users with a typical desktop PC, the Arc A770’s lower power draw and standard interface are practical wins, even if its benchmark scores trail the AMD in the shared tests.