AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc 140V Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The data positions the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Arc 140V Mobile as two fundamentally different solutions with distinct target use cases. The Radeon PRO W7400, a discrete workstation card, offers substantially higher raw compute throughput, with FP32 performance of 7.885 TFLOPS versus the Intel's 3.994 TFLOPS, a gap of nearly 2x. The Arc 140V Mobile, as an integrated processor graphics solution, counters with a significantly higher boost clock of 1950 MHz and double the FP16 throughput at 7.987 TFLOPS, indicating its strength in mixed-precision workloads.

The verdict from the recorded specifications is clear: the AMD card is the choice for dedicated workstation tasks requiring sustained FP32 compute, higher pixel throughput (70.40 GPixel/s vs 62.40 GPixel/s), and dedicated VRAM with 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part is the choice for thin-and-light portable systems where the 37 W TDP and integrated design (IGP slot width) matter more than raw throughput, and where shared system memory can be allocated as needed. Neither part shows a benchmark score advantage in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, so the differentiation rests entirely on architectural and physical characteristics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from different architectural lineages and manufacturing processes. 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 TSMC process. The die measures 204 mm² and contains 13,300 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter.

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile employs the Lunar Lake chip based on Xe2-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) generation. It uses a more advanced 3 nm TSMC process, and while the die size is recorded at 172 mm², the transistor count is listed as unknown, with no density figure available. This process advantage allows Intel to pack a smaller die while integrating the GPU directly into the processor package, as indicated by the IGP bus interface.

The compute architectures differ in execution resources. The AMD part carries 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines. The Intel part has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. For ray tracing, the AMD GPU includes 28 RT cores, while the Intel GPU has 8. Neither lists dedicated tensor cores. The FP16 processing reveals a key architectural divergence: AMD delivers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (both 7.885 TFLOPS), while Intel delivers FP16 at a 2:1 ratio (7.987 TFLOPS FP16 versus 3.994 TFLOPS FP32), indicating Intel's shaders can process half-precision at twice the rate of full precision.

Memory architecture marks another major difference. The AMD card uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s and a memory clock of 1350 MHz, 10.8 Gbps effective. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with the bus width, type, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent," meaning the GPU borrows from the system's main memory pool rather than having its own VRAM.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in scenarios that demand dedicated memory bandwidth and sustained full-precision compute. Its 172.8 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth is a fixed resource that does not compete with the CPU for memory access, making it suitable for large datasets that must reside in GPU memory. Its FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS gives it a clear advantage in traditional graphics rendering and compute workloads that use 32-bit floating point. The 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate indicate strong fill-rate performance for high-resolution rasterization. The 28 RT cores provide substantially more ray tracing hardware than the Intel part's 8 cores, suggesting better performance in ray-traced scenes. The 55 W TDP and single-slot form factor, with no power connectors required, make it a drop-in discrete card for workstations with a 250 W suggested PSU.

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile wins in efficiency and integration. Its 37 W TDP is lower than the AMD part's 55 W, and its IGP form factor means it occupies no expansion slot and consumes no separate power connectors. The 1950 MHz boost clock is nearly double the AMD's 1100 MHz boost, which helps close the gap in texture rate: Intel records 124.8 GTexel/s versus AMD's 123.2 GTexel/s, a marginal Intel advantage despite having fewer TMUs. The FP16 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS exceeds the AMD part's 7.885 TFLOPS, so for workloads that can use half precision, the Intel GPU actually delivers more peak compute. The 62.40 GPixel/s pixel rate trails the AMD part but remains respectable for an integrated solution. The 3 nm process node gives Intel a manufacturing advantage that likely contributes to the higher clock speeds at lower power.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 1.97x the Intel Arc 140V Mobile's 3.994 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the two compare in FP16 performance?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile records 7.987 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, slightly exceeding the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile uses system shared memory, with bandwidth dependent on the system configuration.

Q: Which process node is more advanced?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile uses a 3 nm TSMC process, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm TSMC process. The Intel die is smaller at 172 mm² versus 204 mm².

Q: How does the ray tracing hardware compare?

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

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W and no power connectors. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile has a 37 W TDP and is integrated into the processor with no separate PSU requirement listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not record any head-to-head benchmark results for these two GPUs. Both parts show an average benchmark score of 0 and no benchmark entries in their respective lists. The nearest rivals arrays are also empty, so no comparative performance scores or percentile deltas are available. Consequently, the quantitative comparison must derive entirely from the specification data provided.

The most significant computed differences emerge from the clock and core configurations. The AMD part's FP32 advantage is decisive: 7.885 TFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS, a 97% lead. This stems from the AMD GPU's 1792 shading units operating at a 1100 MHz boost clock, versus Intel's 1024 shading units at 1950 MHz. The shading unit count more than compensates for the lower clock speed.

In texture throughput, the two are nearly identical, with AMD at 123.2 GTexel/s and Intel at 124.8 GTexel/s, giving Intel a slim 1.3% edge. This occurs because Intel's higher boost clock (1950 MHz vs 1100 MHz) partially offsets its lower TMU count (64 vs 112). The pixel rate favors AMD more clearly: 70.40 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s, a 12.8% lead, driven by AMD's 64 ROPs versus Intel's 32 ROPs combined with the clock differences.

Memory bandwidth provides one of the larger separations. AMD's dedicated 172.8 GB/s is a fixed figure, while Intel's is listed as "System Dependent." In any scenario where the system memory bandwidth falls below 172.8 GB/s, the AMD card will have a distinct advantage in memory-bound workloads. The AMD part also has a higher memory clock at 1350 MHz, 10.8 Gbps effective, while Intel's memory clock is "System Shared."

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7400 | Intel Arc 140V Mobile |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe2-LPG |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 3 nm |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 172 mm² |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | Unknown |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1950 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz, 10.8 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 112 | 64 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 28 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 62.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 124.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 37 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not applicable |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2025-08-02 | 2024-09-23 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | HD Graphics-M |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

Both GPUs share identical API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither lists a launch MSRP in the database. The AMD part is a discrete single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, while the Intel part has no recorded dimensions due to its integrated nature. The AMD card was released later, on 2025-08-02, versus the Intel part's 2024-09-23 release.