AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc 140T Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 versus the Intel Arc 140T Mobile. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, and their average benchmark scores are equal at zero. This means the raw performance comparison cannot be quantified through recorded frame rates, compute scores, or synthetic test results. Instead, the analysis must rely on the architectural and specification data available in the database.

The FP32 compute figures provide the clearest measurable gap. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of single-precision performance, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS. That puts the AMD part roughly 64% ahead in raw FP32 throughput, a substantial margin for any workload that scales with shader ALU count. The pixel rate tells a different story: the Intel part reaches 75.20 GPixel/s, slightly ahead of the AMD card's 70.40 GPixel/s. Similarly, the texture rate favors Intel at 150.4 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, an advantage of about 22%. These divergent results indicate that the two GPUs are optimized for different types of work, with AMD holding the compute lead and Intel leading in rasterization throughput.

The FP16 figures add another layer. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 runs FP16 at the same rate as FP32, 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile runs FP16 at 9.626 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles its throughput when operating on half-precision data. This gives Intel a clear advantage in FP16-heavy workloads such as certain AI inference tasks or graphics pipelines that use half-precision storage. The database shows no tensor core counts for either GPU, so any deep learning comparison must stay within the FP16 domain.

Clock speeds also diverge significantly. The AMD card operates at a base clock of 330 MHz and boosts to 1100 MHz. The Intel part has a lower base of 300 MHz but a much higher boost of 2350 MHz. The higher boost clock explains how Intel achieves comparable or better pixel and texture rates despite having fewer shaders. The AMD card's memory clock runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective, while the Intel part uses system-shared memory with no dedicated clock or bandwidth figures recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 204 mm² and contains 13,300 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. This is a discrete, single-slot card with a 55 W TDP and no power connectors, drawing power entirely from the PCIe 4.0 x8 slot.

The Intel Arc 140T Mobile uses the Arrow Lake-H chip built on Xe-LPG+ architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the database records no transistor count, die size, or transistor density for this part. It is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 35 W TDP, which is 20 W lower than the AMD card. The Intel part uses system-shared memory, meaning its bandwidth and capacity depend entirely on the host system's RAM configuration.

The memory configurations represent the most fundamental architectural split. The AMD card has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part has no dedicated memory; its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system dependent. This makes the AMD card's memory behavior predictable and consistent, while the Intel part's memory performance varies with the laptop's RAM speed, channel count, and capacity.

Shader resources differ as well. The AMD card has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), 64 raster operation units (ROPs), and 28 ray tracing (RT) cores. The Intel part has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The AMD card has roughly 75% more shading units, 75% more TMUs, 100% more ROPs, and 3.5 times the RT core count. This explains the FP32 lead, while the Intel part's higher boost clock compensates in pixel and texture rates.

The display outputs also differ. The AMD card provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it suitable for multi-monitor workstation setups. The Intel part's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its integrated nature in laptops where the manufacturer decides the physical ports. The AMD card is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide, while the Intel part has no recorded dimensions because it is soldered onto the motherboard.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split in intended usage. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a discrete workstation card with dedicated memory, a 55 W TDP, and 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. It is built for consistent, sustained performance in professional applications that rely on single-precision floating-point math. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory at 172.8 GB/s provides a fixed memory budget that does not compete with the host system for bandwidth.

The Intel Arc 140T Mobile is an integrated GPU with a 35 W TDP and a 2:1 FP16 ratio. Its 9.626 TFLOPS of half-precision throughput and higher boost clock of 2350 MHz make it competitive in FP16 workloads, but its system-shared memory and lower FP32 output limit its appeal for compute-heavy tasks. The 5 nm process node gives it a manufacturing advantage in density, though the database does not record die size or transistor count to quantify that benefit.

For a workstation user who needs a dedicated card with fixed memory and strong FP32 performance, the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the data-backed choice. For a laptop user who wants an integrated GPU with good FP16 throughput and minimal power draw, the Intel Arc 140T Mobile fits that profile. The absence of direct benchmark scores means this verdict rests entirely on the spec sheet, but the architectural differences are pronounced enough to guide a decision.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32, which is about 64% higher than the Intel Arc 140T Mobile's 4.813 TFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP16 performance?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile delivers 9.626 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile uses system-shared memory with bandwidth and capacity dependent on the host system.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested power supply. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile has a 35 W TDP and lists no power supply requirement because it is an integrated GPU.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 28 RT cores, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile has 8 RT cores.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in FP32 compute, dedicated memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and ray tracing core count. Its 7.885 TFLOPS of single-precision throughput and 172.8 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth make it the stronger choice for compute-heavy professional workloads such as CAD, simulation, or rendering pipelines that rely on FP32 math. The 28 RT cores give it a substantial advantage in ray-traced rendering tasks, and the 8 GB of GDDR6 memory provides a stable memory pool that does not fluctuate with system load. The four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups.

The Intel Arc 140T Mobile wins in FP16 throughput, pixel rate, texture rate, boost clock, and power efficiency. Its 9.626 TFLOPS of half-precision performance is 22% higher than the AMD card's FP16 output, making it better suited for workloads that can use FP16 acceleration. The 75.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 150.4 GTexel/s texture rate indicate faster rasterization throughput, despite the lower shader count. The 2350 MHz boost clock drives these rates, and the 35 W TDP draws 20 W less power than the AMD card. The 5 nm process node suggests a more compact implementation, though the database records no die size to confirm this.

The system-shared memory on the Intel part is a double-edged sword. In a laptop with fast DDR5 memory and dual-channel configuration, the bandwidth could approach or exceed the AMD card's 172.8 GB/s, but the database does not record such configurations. In a system with slower memory, the Intel part would lag significantly. The AMD card's dedicated memory removes this uncertainty entirely.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Process Node: AMD uses 6 nm, Intel uses 5 nm
• Transistors: AMD has 13,300 million, Intel is unknown
• Die Size: AMD is 204 mm², Intel is unknown
• Transistor Density: AMD is 65.2M / mm², Intel has no recorded value
• Base Clock: AMD is 330 MHz, Intel is 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: AMD is 1100 MHz, Intel is 2350 MHz
• Memory Clock: AMD is 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), Intel is system shared
• Memory Size: AMD is 8 GB, Intel is system shared
• Memory Type: AMD is GDDR6, Intel is system shared
• Memory Bus Width: AMD is 128 bit, Intel is system shared
• Memory Bandwidth: AMD is 172.8 GB/s, Intel is system dependent
• Shading Units: AMD has 1792, Intel has 1024
• TMUs: AMD has 112, Intel has 64
• ROPs: AMD has 64, Intel has 32
• RT Cores: AMD has 28, Intel has 8
• Pixel Rate: AMD is 70.40 GPixel/s, Intel is 75.20 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: AMD is 123.2 GTexel/s, Intel is 150.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: AMD is 7.885 TFLOPS, Intel is 4.813 TFLOPS
• FP16: AMD is 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1), Intel is 9.626 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: AMD is 55 W, Intel is 35 W
• Slot Width: AMD is single-slot, Intel is IGP
• Power Connectors: AMD has none, Intel has none listed
• Suggested PSU: AMD is 250 W, Intel has none listed
• Bus Interface: AMD is PCIe 4.0 x8, Intel is IGP
• Display Outputs: AMD has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, Intel is portable device dependent
• Dimensions: AMD is 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm, Intel has no recorded dimensions
• Release Date: AMD is 2025-08-02, Intel is 2025-01-12
• Predecessor: AMD is Radeon Pro Vega, Intel is HD Graphics-M