AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a clear division of labor between these two graphics processors, even without aggregated benchmark scores to lean on. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is positioned as a workstation-oriented solution with a higher raw compute ceiling, while the Intel Arc A380M is engineered as a low-power mobile module with a different performance profile.

The AMD part wins on sheer compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 7.885 TFLOPS is nearly double the Intel part's 4.096 TFLOPS. This advantage extends to pixel processing, where the Radeon delivers 70.40 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the Arc, and to memory capacity, with 8 GB versus 6 GB. For workloads that scale with shader count, the Radeon's 1792 shading units against Intel's 1024 represents a 75% advantage in parallel execution lanes.

The Intel Arc A380M counters in specific efficiency and bandwidth metrics. Its memory bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s exceeds the Radeon's 172.8 GB/s despite a narrower 96-bit bus, because the Intel memory clock runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the AMD card. Texture rate also favors Intel, with 128.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a modest but real lead. The Arc's FP16 throughput of 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) surpasses the Radeon's 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), indicating that Intel's architecture processes half-precision math at a higher rate despite the FP32 deficit.

The thermal envelope separates them further. The Radeon PRO W7400 carries a 55 W TDP, while the Arc A380M draws only 35 W. This makes the Intel part the lower-power option, suited for compact or battery-constrained systems. The Radeon, however, occupies a single slot with no external power connectors and lists a 250 W suggested PSU, indicating it can run in conventional desktop chassis without special cabling.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from distinct architectural lineages. AMD's Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0, with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish." It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. Intel's Arc A380M uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3 Mobile). Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical, but the transistor budgets differ substantially.

The AMD chip integrates 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The Intel chip packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, with a density of 45.9M per mm². This means AMD packs nearly twice the transistors into a moderately larger die, reflecting a more complex compute layout. The Radeon's internal resources include 112 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation pipelines, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Arc counters with 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The Radeon's ray tracing core count is 3.5 times higher, which could matter for rendering workflows that use hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Memory architecture diverges as well. The Radeon uses an 8 GB GDDR6 configuration on a 128-bit bus, achieving 172.8 GB/s. The Arc uses 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yet reaches 186.0 GB/s through a much faster memory clock. Clock behavior also differs: the Radeon's base clock sits at 330 MHz with a boost of 1100 MHz, while the Arc runs at a 1550 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost. The Radeon's low base clock suggests aggressive power management at idle, whereas the Arc maintains a higher baseline frequency.

API support is identical on paper: both claim DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The form factors could not be more different. The Radeon is a 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, 20 mm wide single-slot card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Arc is an MXM-A (3.1) module with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host laptop or mobile chassis for display connectivity.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc A380M provides 4.096 TFLOPS. The Radeon is roughly 92% ahead in single-precision floating-point throughput based on the recorded figures.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380M have any performance advantage over the Radeon PRO W7400?

A: Yes. The Arc A380M shows higher memory bandwidth at 186.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s, higher texture rate at 128.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, and higher FP16 throughput at 8.192 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested power supply. The Arc A380M has a 35 W TDP and lists no suggested PSU, reflecting its mobile module design.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Radeon uses 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc uses 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc achieves higher bandwidth through a faster effective memory clock of 15.5 Gbps versus 10.8 Gbps.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A380M has 8 ray tracing cores. The Radeon's count is 3.5 times higher.

Q: Both GPUs use the same manufacturing process, but how do their dies compare?

A: Both use TSMC's 6 nm process. The Radeon's Navi 33 die measures 204 mm² with 13,300 million transistors. The Intel DG2-128 die measures 157 mm² with 7,200 million transistors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every measurable specification. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip on RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Arc A380M uses DG2-128 on Xe-HPG. Both are TSMC 6 nm parts, but the Radeon's die is 204 mm² versus 157 mm² for the Arc. Transistor count stands at 13,300 million for AMD and 7,200 million for Intel, giving the Radeon a density of 65.2M transistors per mm² versus 45.9M for the Arc.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Radeon runs at a 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, with memory at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The Arc runs at a 1550 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The Arc's clocks are substantially higher, but the Radeon compensates with more execution units.

Compute resources: the Radeon has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. The Arc has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The Radeon leads in every compute count category. Pixel rate favors the Radeon at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors the Arc at 128.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s.

Memory capacity and bus width favor the Radeon (8 GB, 128-bit), while bandwidth favors the Arc (186.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s). FP32 and FP16 rates favor different cards in different precision modes: the Radeon leads FP32 at 7.885 TFLOPS, but the Arc leads FP16 at 8.192 TFLOPS due to its 2:1 ratio.

Power and form factor also separate them. The Radeon is a single-slot card drawing 55 W with no power connectors, measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, and outputting via four DisplayPort 2.1 ports. The Arc is an MXM module drawing 35 W with no listed power connectors or dimensions, and its display outputs depend on the portable device. The Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Arc uses MXM-A (3.1) as its bus interface. Release dates differ, with the Radeon appearing in 2025-08-02 and the Arc in 2023-01-23.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark runs for this pair, and neither GPU has an average benchmark score or percentile ranking beyond a neutral 50th percentile against all GPUs. The wins and losses must therefore be derived from the specification-level measurements recorded in the database.

The clearest win for the Radeon PRO W7400 is FP32 compute. At 7.885 TFLOPS, it outperforms the Arc A380M's 4.096 TFLOPS by 92.5%. This is the largest single-metric margin in the comparison. The Radeon also leads in pixel rate, producing 70.40 GPixel/s against 64.00 GPixel/s, a 10% advantage. Memory capacity gives the Radeon a 2 GB lead, which can matter for large datasets or higher-resolution textures. The Radeon's 28 ray tracing cores versus 8 represent a 250% advantage, though the database does not record ray tracing performance results.

The Arc A380M takes the bandwidth metric. Its 186.0 GB/s memory bandwidth beats the Radeon's 172.8 GB/s by 7.6%. Texture rate goes to the Arc as well, at 128.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a 3.9% edge. FP16 throughput favors the Arc at 8.192 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS, an 3.9% lead, though this comes from a 2:1 FP16 ratio rather than higher shader throughput. Power efficiency also favors the Arc, with a 35 W TDP against 55 W, meaning it delivers its bandwidth and texture results at 63.6% of the Radeon's power draw.

The Radeon's base clock of 330 MHz versus the Arc's 1550 MHz suggests very different operating philosophies. The Radeon appears designed to idle low and ramp up, while the Arc maintains a higher floor. Boost clocks tell a similar story: 1100 MHz for the Radeon versus 2000 MHz for the Arc. Despite the Radeon's lower clocks, its wider execution resource pool yields higher FP32 output, indicating that instruction-level parallelism carries the throughput.

The Verdict

The database indicates that the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the stronger compute card for FP32-heavy workloads, larger memory footprints, and ray tracing scenarios. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, 8 GB memory, and 28 RT cores position it for professional rendering, simulation, or compute tasks where shader count and memory capacity dominate. The 55 W TDP with no external power connectors makes it installable in standard desktop slots, and the four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support multi-display workstation setups.

The Intel Arc A380M serves a different purpose. Its 35 W TDP and MXM module form factor target mobile or compact systems where power budget and physical space are constrained. The higher memory bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s and texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s give it an edge in bandwidth-sensitive tasks, and its FP16 throughput of 8.192 TFLOPS could benefit workloads that use half-precision arithmetic. However, the 6 GB memory capacity and 1024 shading units limit its ceiling for large-scale compute.

The data does not crown an absolute winner. It shows two GPUs engineered for different operating points: one prioritizes raw FP32 compute and memory capacity in a desktop card, the other prioritizes bandwidth, texture throughput, and low power in a mobile module. Users with workstation desktops and compute-heavy tasks should favor the Radeon. Users with portable devices needing efficient graphics with competitive bandwidth should favor the Arc. Both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, indicating neither is exceptional in the broader landscape, but each occupies a specific niche with measurable strengths.