AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Arc A310E. Both products sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of zero recorded for each. The absence of measured performance deltas means a direct comparison must be built from the architectural specifications and compute capabilities listed in the database rather than from side-by-side testing.

The clearest numerical separation appears in raw compute throughput. The Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at roughly 2.57 times the single-precision throughput of the Intel part. In FP16 work, the gap changes shape: the W7400 maintains 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the A310E reaches 6.144 TFLOPS through a 2:1 rate. Here the AMD card is only about 1.28 times faster, because Intel's architecture doubles its FP16 rate relative to FP32.

Texture and pixel throughput also favor AMD. The W7400 records 123.2 GTexel/s against 64.00 GTexel/s for the A310E, a margin of roughly 1.93 times. Pixel fill rates show 70.40 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s, a 2.2 times advantage. These figures stem directly from the resource counts: the AMD chip has 112 texture mapping units and 64 render output units, while the Intel chip has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs.

Memory bandwidth separates the two as well. The W7400 uses an 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer on a 128-bit bus, producing 172.8 GB/s. The A310E uses 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, producing 124.0 GB/s. The AMD card holds a 48.8 GB/s bandwidth lead, or about 1.39 times the Intel card's bandwidth. Effective memory speed differs too: 10.8 Gbps for the W7400 versus 15.5 Gbps for the A310E, though the wider bus on the AMD card overcomes the slower per-pin rate.

Ray tracing hardware shows a similar pattern. The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores, while the A310E includes 6. Shader resources are lopsided as well: 1792 shading units on the AMD side versus 768 on the Intel side.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins in every category where the database records a measurable specification. Its FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS is more than double the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS, which suits workloads built around single-precision compute. The texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s give it the edge in fill-rate-bound rendering tasks. The 8 GB memory capacity doubles the Intel card's 4 GB, and the 172.8 GB/s bandwidth provides headroom for larger textures and buffers. The 28 ray tracing cores versus 6 indicate substantially stronger RT workloads, assuming software scales with core count.

The Arc A310E has fewer outright wins, but it does hold advantages in specific areas. Its boost clock runs at 2000 MHz, compared to the W7400's 1100 MHz boost. That higher clock helps narrow the FP16 gap, where the Intel card reaches 6.144 TFLOPS, about 78% of the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS. The A310E also lists a lower transistor count at 7,200 million versus 13,300 million, and a smaller die at 157 mm² against 204 mm². For workloads sensitive to power draw, the Intel card's 75 W TDP is higher than the AMD card's 55 W, so AMD wins on efficiency per watt based on the recorded figures.

The A310E carries a memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), which is faster than the W7400's 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). In a narrow memory-clock comparison, Intel wins. But bandwidth, the metric that matters for actual throughput, belongs to AMD. The A310E also supports FP16 at a 2:1 rate, which means it processes half-precision data at twice its FP32 rate. That could benefit certain machine learning inference tasks that use FP16, though the absolute FP16 throughput still trails the W7400.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families. AMD uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. Intel uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip from the Alchemist generation, part of the Arc 3 lineup. Both are manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, so the process node does not differentiate them.

Transistor counts and die sizes do. The Navi 33 packs 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The DG2-128 packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding 45.9 million per square millimeter. AMD has a density advantage of roughly 1.42 times, which explains how it fits more than double the shading units into a modestly larger die.

Memory subsystems differ in width and capacity. The W7400 uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6. The A310E uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6. Both connect over PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs diverge: the W7400 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the A310E offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0. Both cards are single-slot designs with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Their physical dimensions match exactly: 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width.

API support is identical on paper. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The ray tracing implementations differ in hardware scale, with the AMD card carrying 28 RT cores and the Intel card carrying 6. Neither card lists tensor cores, so any AI acceleration relies on the shading units and RT cores.

Production status separates the two as well. The W7400 is listed as Active, while the A310E is End-of-life. The Intel card's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage. The AMD card's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, with no successor listed. Release dates place the A310E in March 2024 and the W7400 in August 2025, though no performance data accompanies either launch.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. The AMD card is approximately 2.57 times faster in single-precision compute.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card offers both more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The W7400 lists a TDP of 55 W, while the A310E lists 75 W. Given the W7400's higher compute throughput at lower power draw, the recorded data shows AMD delivering more performance per watt.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The ray tracing hardware differs, with 28 RT cores on the W7400 and 6 on the A310E.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: Both cards measure 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. Both are single-slot designs with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The A310E runs at a 2000 MHz boost clock, while the W7400 lists a 1100 MHz boost clock. Despite the clock disadvantage, the W7400 still produces higher overall throughput due to its larger shader count and memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 as the stronger GPU in nearly every measured specification. It doubles the FP32 throughput, triples the texture rate, more than doubles the pixel rate, carries more than four times the ray tracing cores, and offers double the memory capacity with higher bandwidth. Its 55 W TDP is lower than the Intel card's 75 W, and its production status remains Active. For any workload that depends on raw compute, fill rate, or memory bandwidth, the W7400 is the clear choice from the numbers available.

The Intel Arc A310E holds value only in narrow cases. Its 2000 MHz boost clock is nearly double the AMD card's, and its FP16 rate of 6.144 TFLOPS comes close to the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. The smaller die and lower transistor count may appeal to designs with strict silicon-area constraints. The End-of-life status, however, limits its long-term viability, and its successor Battlemage is already listed in the database.

For buyers choosing between these two based strictly on the database records, the W7400 wins on compute, memory, efficiency, and availability. The A310E appears best suited to environments where the higher clock speed or the specific 2:1 FP16 ratio matters more than raw throughput, but the specification sheet does not reveal a scenario where the Intel card outperforms the AMD card in a head-to-head metric. The verdict follows the data: AMD's part is the superior product across the board, with the Intel part occupying a niche for half-precision work at lower absolute performance.