AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc A380E x2 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Arc A380E x2 shows two very different design goals, despite both being single-slot cards aimed at professional environments. The AMD part is built around raw compute density and modern display output, while the Intel part pushes higher clock speeds and a wider memory bandwidth relative to its bus width.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers substantially higher raw shader throughput. Its FP32 performance is recorded at 7.885 TFLOPS, which is nearly double the 4.096 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A380E x2. This advantage extends to pixel processing, where the AMD card reaches 70.40 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the Intel card. For workloads that hammer the shader array, such as 3D rendering, simulation, or compute-heavy CAD, the W7400 is the clear pick.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 counters with a much higher base and boost clock, both recorded at 2000 MHz, compared to the AMD card's 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost. The Intel card also has a higher texture fill rate at 128.0 GTexel/s, versus 123.2 GTexel/s for the AMD part. This suggests the Intel card handles texture-heavy workloads, like certain types of image filtering or texture sampling, with slightly more throughput.

Memory bandwidth tells a nuanced story. The AMD card has 172.8 GB/s across a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6. The Intel card has 186.0 GB/s across a narrower 96-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR6. The Intel card actually moves more data per second, but it has less total memory capacity and a narrower bus. For large datasets that exceed 6 GB, the AMD card's 8 GB capacity is the practical advantage. For streaming smaller data sets quickly, the Intel card's bandwidth edge matters.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 also holds a significant advantage in FP16 throughput. Its 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 performance, achieved at a 2:1 ratio, is higher than the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS FP16, which runs at a 1:1 ratio. Applications that use FP16 math, such as certain AI inference paths or image processing pipelines, may see better performance on the Intel card.

Display output is another clear split. The AMD card provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Intel card provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. For multi-display digital signage or video wall setups, the Intel card's eight outputs are a decisive advantage. The AMD card supports the newer DisplayPort 2.1 standard, which matters for the latest high-refresh displays.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more shader processing power?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units and delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 has 1024 shading units and delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 supports 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 supports 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: Which card has more memory capacity?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 186.0 GB/s, which is higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 172.8 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has a TDP of 130 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is listed as Active, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 is listed as End-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table for these two cards is empty in the database, so the comparison must be drawn from the recorded specification data and derived performance rates.

The largest single numerical win for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is in FP32 compute. The card delivers 7.885 TFLOPS, which is 3.789 TFLOPS higher than the Intel Arc A380E x2's 4.096 TFLOPS. This is a 92.5% advantage in raw single-precision throughput. The AMD card also has 1792 shading units versus 1024, a difference of 768 units, and 28 ray tracing cores versus 8. The pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s exceeds the Intel card's 64.00 GPixel/s by 6.4 GPixel/s.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 wins in texture throughput. Its 128.0 GTexel/s beats the AMD card's 123.2 GTexel/s by 4.8 GTexel/s, a 3.9% advantage. This comes despite the Intel card having fewer TMUs, 64 versus 112. The higher clock speed of 2000 MHz on the Intel card compensates for the lower TMU count.

Memory bandwidth is also an Intel win. The 186.0 GB/s figure is 13.2 GB/s higher than the AMD card's 172.8 GB/s, a 7.6% advantage. The Intel card achieves this with a slower effective memory clock in MHz terms, 1937 MHz versus 1350 MHz, but the effective data rate of 15.5 Gbps versus 10.8 Gbps explains the difference. The Intel card's GDDR6 runs at a higher effective speed per pin.

Power efficiency favors AMD heavily. The W7400 delivers its performance at 55 W TDP, while the Intel card draws 130 W TDP. The AMD card also requires no external power connectors, while the Intel card needs a 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU rating reflects this: 250 W for AMD versus 300 W for Intel.

Die size and transistor density also favor AMD. The Navi 33 chip packs 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a density of 65.2M transistors per mm². The Intel DG2-128 chip has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for a density of 45.9M per mm². The AMD chip is denser and carries nearly double the transistor count.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every major specification category.

Memory capacity: AMD has 8 GB, Intel has 6 GB. Memory bus width: AMD uses 128 bit, Intel uses 96 bit. Memory bandwidth: AMD has 172.8 GB/s, Intel has 186.0 GB/s. Memory clock: AMD runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective, Intel runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective.

Shader resources: AMD has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Intel has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Ray tracing cores: AMD has 28, Intel has 8.

Clock speeds: AMD has a 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost. Intel has a 2000 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost. The Intel card does not vary its clock between base and boost.

Power and cooling: AMD is 55 W TDP, single-slot, no power connectors, suggested PSU of 250 W. Intel is 130 W TDP, single-slot, one 6-pin power connector, suggested PSU of 300 W.

Dimensions: AMD is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, 20 mm wide. Intel is 265 mm long, 127 mm high, 20 mm wide. The Intel card is significantly longer and taller, which matters for chassis fit.

Display outputs: AMD provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1. Intel provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0. The AMD card uses the newer DisplayPort standard.

Bus interface is the same for both: PCIe 4.0 x8.

Production status differs: AMD is Active, Intel is End-of-life. Release dates also differ, with the Intel card released earlier.

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. The chip is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is also fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The transistor density is lower on the Intel chip, at 45.9M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm² for AMD.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has tensor cores listed in the database.

FP16 performance differs in ratio. The AMD card runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning both are 7.885 TFLOPS. The Intel card runs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 is double FP32 at 8.192 TFLOPS. This architectural choice makes the Intel card better suited for FP16-heavy workloads despite its lower FP32 throughput.

The AMD card has 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel card has 8. Both support ray tracing, but the AMD implementation has more hardware units dedicated to it. The AMD card also has more ROPs, 64 versus 32, which contributes to its higher pixel rate.

Power delivery architecture differs significantly. The AMD card draws no external power, relying entirely on the PCIe slot at 55 W TDP. The Intel card requires a single 6-pin connector for its 130 W TDP. This makes the AMD card easier to install in systems with limited power cabling.

The predecessor and successor lineage differs. The AMD card's predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega, with no successor recorded. The Intel card's predecessor is Xe Graphics, with Battlemage listed as the successor. The Intel card is also marked as End-of-life, while the AMD card remains Active.

The Verdict

The database records show two cards with opposite strengths. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the compute-focused card. It delivers nearly double the FP32 throughput of the Intel Arc A380E x2, has more than double the ray tracing cores, more than double the ROPs, and more memory capacity. It also runs at a fraction of the power, 55 W versus 130 W, and requires no external power connector. The AMD card is the choice for GPU compute, 3D rendering, or any workload that saturates the shader array.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 is the bandwidth and display-focused card. It has higher memory bandwidth, higher texture fill rate, higher FP16 throughput, and eight display outputs versus four. The Intel card is the choice for multi-screen video walls, texture-bound image processing, or FP16-precision compute pipelines. Its higher clock speed of 2000 MHz on both base and boost helps it stay competitive in texture rate despite having fewer TMUs.

For physical installation, the AMD card is far more flexible. Its 168 mm length and 69 mm height fit in compact chassis, while the Intel card's 265 mm length and 127 mm height require a larger case. The AMD card also avoids the need for a 6-pin power cable, which simplifies cabling in dense systems.

The Intel card's End-of-life status is a consideration for long-term deployments. The AMD card remains Active in production. The Intel card's successor is listed as Battlemage, while the AMD card has no successor recorded.

Both cards sit at the 50th percentile in the database's all-GPU rankings, with average benchmark scores of zero. Neither card has recorded benchmark entries or nearest rivals, so the comparison rests entirely on the specification-level data.

The practical verdict: pick the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 for compute density, low power draw, compact size, and modern DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. Pick the Intel Arc A380E x2 for maximum display count, higher memory bandwidth, FP16 throughput, and texture-bound workloads. The two cards are not direct substitutes; they serve different segments of the professional GPU market.