AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core differences in processing resources between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Arc A380E?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, and 28 ray accelerators. The Intel Arc A380E is configured with 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory capacity and bus width?

A: The AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel card has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, which provides 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth despite the smaller capacity and narrower interface.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc A380E runs at a fixed clock of 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 and FP16 throughput?

A: The AMD card delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.885 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel card delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The Intel Arc A380E measures 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, making it substantially longer and taller.

Q: Which card is still in active production?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has an Active production status. The Intel Arc A380E is marked as End-of-life, with its successor listed as Battlemage.

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 as the stronger choice for raw FP32 compute and traditional rasterization workloads. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 output is 92.5% higher than the Intel Arc A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS. The AMD card also holds a clear advantage in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray accelerators, with 1792 versus 1024 shading units, 112 versus 64 TMUs, 64 versus 32 ROPs, and 28 versus 8 ray accelerators. For applications that rely on single-precision floating-point math, the database shows a decisive edge for the AMD part.

The Intel Arc A380E, however, counters with a higher memory bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s compared to 172.8 GB/s, despite having only 6 GB of memory versus 8 GB. Its FP16 throughput of 8.192 TFLOPS exceeds the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS, which could benefit workloads that use half-precision arithmetic. The Intel card also runs at a much higher sustained clock of 2000 MHz, whereas the AMD card boosts to only 1100 MHz. For users whose tasks are memory-bandwidth-bound or FP16-heavy, the Intel card offers measurable advantages.

The AMD card's die is larger at 204 mm² versus 157 mm², and it packs 13,300 million transistors compared to 7,200 million. The AMD card also has a lower TDP of 55 W versus 75 W, and it fits in a shorter 168 mm length versus 254 mm. Both cards use the same 6 nm TSMC process node and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, and both require a suggested 250 W power supply.

The production status differs meaningfully: AMD lists the W7400 as Active, while Intel lists the A380E as End-of-life with Battlemage as its successor. The AMD card released later, on 2025-08-02, compared to the Intel card's 2024-03-31 release. For long-term deployment, the Active status of the AMD card is a relevant factor.

Neither card has recorded benchmark scores in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. With no direct head-to-head measurements available, the analysis relies on the architectural and specification data. The AMD card is the better fit for FP32 compute and rasterization-heavy workflows. The Intel card is the better fit for FP16 workloads and memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks, provided the 6 GB capacity is sufficient.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Arc A380E. Neither card has an average benchmark score, and the wins counter shows zero for both sides. The comparison must therefore be drawn from the specification differences and the derived throughput rates.

The most significant margin in the data is in FP32 compute. The AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS is nearly double the Intel card's 4.096 TFLOPS, a difference of 3.789 TFLOPS. This gap directly reflects the AMD card's larger execution resource pool: 1792 shading units versus 1024, 112 TMUs versus 64, and 64 ROPs versus 32. In rasterization-heavy tasks that scale with shading units and texture throughput, the AMD card has a structural advantage.

The texture rate numbers confirm this pattern. The AMD card achieves 123.2 GTexel/s, while the Intel card reaches 128.0 GTexel/s. Despite having fewer TMUs, the Intel card's higher clock speed of 2000 MHz nearly compensates, resulting in a slight 4.8 GTexel/s advantage for Intel. The pixel rates are closer still: the AMD card delivers 70.40 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for Intel, a 6.40 GPixel/s lead for AMD.

The memory subsystem shows a different story. The Intel card's 186.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the AMD card's 172.8 GB/s by 13.2 GB/s, even though the AMD card has a wider 128-bit bus and more memory. The Intel card achieves this with a higher effective memory clock of 15.5 Gbps compared to 10.8 Gbps. For workloads that stream large datasets, the bandwidth advantage belongs to Intel.

In FP16 throughput, the Intel card flips the FP32 result. Its 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 output surpasses the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS by 0.307 TFLOPS. The Intel card uses a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the AMD card uses a 1:1 ratio, meaning the Intel architecture dedicates proportionally more throughput to half-precision operations.

The ray tracing resources show a clear AMD advantage. The AMD card has 28 ray accelerators versus 8 for Intel, a 3.5x difference in dedicated hardware units. The AMD card's boost clock of 1100 MHz is lower than Intel's 2000 MHz, but the much higher unit count suggests a substantial lead in ray tracing workloads.

The transistor and die data reinforce the AMD card's larger implementation. The AMD chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, while the Intel chip has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The transistor density is 65.2M per mm² for AMD versus 45.9M per mm² for Intel, indicating a denser design on the AMD side.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish, while the Intel Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip with Xe-HPG architecture and no listed codename. The AMD card belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, and the Intel card belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation.

The process node is identical at 6 nm from TSMC, but the transistor counts differ substantially: 13,300 million for AMD versus 7,200 million for Intel. The die size is 204 mm² for AMD and 157 mm² for Intel, with transistor densities of 65.2M per mm² and 45.9M per mm², respectively.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The AMD card has a 330 MHz base clock and a 1100 MHz boost clock. The Intel card has both base and boost clocks fixed at 2000 MHz. The memory clocks also differ: AMD runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective, while Intel runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is another clear differentiator. The AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card has more capacity and a wider bus, but the Intel card achieves higher bandwidth.

The compute unit counts diverge significantly. AMD uses 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray accelerators. Intel uses 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The derived rates reflect these counts: AMD achieves 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s, while Intel achieves 64.00 GPixel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s.

Floating-point performance shows an interesting split. AMD delivers 7.885 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. Intel delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The FP32 advantage belongs to AMD, and the FP16 advantage belongs to Intel.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The AMD card has a TDP of 55 W, while the Intel card has a TDP of 75 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W power supply. The AMD card is 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, and 20 mm wide. The Intel card is 254 mm long, 127 mm tall, and 20 mm wide, making it considerably larger.

Display outputs are similar in count but differ in version: the AMD card has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, and the Intel card has 4x DisplayPort 2.0. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 and support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Production status and release timing differ. The AMD card is Active and was released on 2025-08-02, with its predecessor listed as Radeon Pro Vega. The Intel card is End-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with its predecessor listed as Xe Graphics and its successor as Battlemage.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Intel Arc A380E uses the Xe-HPG architecture. These are fundamentally different design approaches, and the data reflects their priorities.

RDNA 3.0 on the AMD side implements a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, meaning the FP16 throughput equals FP32 throughput at 7.885 TFLOPS. This design favors workloads that require consistent precision across both formats. The Xe-HPG architecture on the Intel side uses a 2:1 ratio, doubling FP16 throughput to 8.192 TFLOPS while FP32 sits at 4.096 TFLOPS. The Intel design dedicates more hardware to half-precision arithmetic.

The ray tracing implementations differ in scale. The AMD card carries 28 ray accelerators, while the Intel card carries 8 ray tracing cores. This 20-unit difference indicates a much larger ray tracing hardware allocation on the AMD die. The AMD card's boost clock of 1100 MHz is lower than Intel's fixed 2000 MHz, but the ray accelerator count dominates the comparison.

The transistor budgets tell a story of design complexity. The AMD chip uses 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, achieving a density of 65.2M per mm². The Intel chip uses 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a density of 45.9M per mm². The AMD design is both larger and denser, which aligns with its higher shading unit and ray accelerator counts.

The clock strategy diverges sharply. The Intel card runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, suggesting a design that maintains a constant frequency under load. The AMD card has a 330 MHz base clock and a 1100 MHz boost clock, indicating a wider dynamic range in operating frequency. The Intel card's higher sustained clock helps it reach 128.0 GTexel/s with only 64 TMUs, nearly matching the AMD card's 123.2 GTexel/s from 112 TMUs.

Memory architecture differs in both capacity and bus width. The AMD card uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6, while the Intel card uses a 96-bit bus with 6 GB. The Intel card compensates with a higher effective memory clock of 15.5 Gbps versus 10.8 Gbps, resulting in higher bandwidth. The AMD card's wider bus and larger capacity favor applications that need more memory footprint, while the Intel card's bandwidth favors streaming operations.

The display output versions indicate a generational difference. The AMD card supports DisplayPort 2.1, while the Intel card supports DisplayPort 2.0. Both cards provide four display outputs and use the same PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The API support is identical across both cards: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The production lifecycle differs notably. The AMD card is Active, released on 2025-08-02, with its predecessor listed as Radeon Pro Vega. The Intel card is End-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with its predecessor as Xe Graphics and its successor as Battlemage. This indicates the Intel card is at the end of its product cycle, while the AMD card is in current production.