AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc A530M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and Intel Arc A530M occupy different corners of the graphics market, and the recorded data reflects that split clearly. The AMD part is a desktop workstation card with a 55 W TDP, a single-slot design, and no power connectors, while the Intel part is a mobile integrated graphics solution with a 65 W TDP and a form factor listed as IGP. The Intel Arc A530M holds an 85th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, whereas the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 sits at the 50th percentile, a substantial gap in overall standing.

The AMD card wins on raw shading capability. Its 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines give it a decided edge in compute-heavy workloads, delivering 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The Intel part counters with 1536 shaders, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, producing 3.994 TFLOPS FP32, roughly half the AMD figure. For single-precision floating point tasks, the AMD card is the clear choice, and the data shows a 97.4% advantage in FP32 throughput.

The Intel Arc A530M wins on memory bandwidth and half-precision compute. Its 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth exceeds the AMD card's 172.8 GB/s by 29.6%. In FP16 workloads, Intel's 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) edges out AMD's 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), a narrow but real margin. The Intel part also carries a higher percentile ranking, 85 versus 50, indicating stronger overall benchmark performance in the database.

Texture rate is nearly identical, with Intel at 124.8 GTexel/s and AMD at 123.2 GTexel/s, a difference of only 1.3%. Pixel rate favors AMD at 70.40 GPixel/s versus Intel's 62.40 GPixel/s, a 12.8% advantage. The AMD card also leads in ray tracing hardware with 28 RT cores versus Intel's 12, although neither part's RT core count is accompanied by benchmark scores in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. AMD uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series). Intel uses the DG2-256 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation under the Arc 5 Mobile family. Both are fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes differ meaningfully.

AMD's Navi 33 packs 13,300 million transistors onto a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². Intel's DG2-256 contains 11,500 million transistors on a larger 269 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 42.8 million per mm². The AMD chip is smaller and denser, while the Intel chip uses more silicon area for fewer transistors. This structural difference helps explain the AMD card's higher FP32 throughput despite its lower overall benchmark percentile.

Clock behavior also diverges. AMD's base clock is 330 MHz with a boost of 1100 MHz, while Intel runs a 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. The Intel part operates at higher clocks, but the AMD card compensates with more execution resources. Memory clocks show AMD at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) and Intel at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), which explains the bandwidth gap despite both using 128-bit buses and 8 GB of GDDR6.

API support is identical: both reach DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the Intel mobile part's display outputs are listed as dependent on the portable device. Power delivery differs substantially: AMD uses no power connectors with a 250 W suggested PSU, while Intel lists no power connector information and no suggested PSU. The AMD card is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide; the Intel part has no recorded dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two GPUs, so the comparison relies on the Intel Arc A530M's recorded benchmark results and the AMD card's absence of scores. The Intel part shows a Geekbench OpenCL score of 49735 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 43492. Its average benchmark score is 46614, which places it at the 85th percentile. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores and an average score of zero, which is why its percentile sits at 50.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Intel Arc A530M performs consistently. It matches the AMD Radeon RX 5600M exactly with a 0% delta at 46601 average score. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 6550M by 0.2% (that card scores 46702) and leads the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.2% (46043) and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation by 1.4% (45972). These narrow margins indicate the Intel part sits in a tightly competitive band, with no single rival holding a decisive edge.

The FP32 gap between the two cards is the largest measured difference in the data. AMD's 7.885 TFLOPS versus Intel's 3.994 TFLOPS represents a 97.4% lead for AMD. In FP16, the situation flips slightly: Intel's 7.987 TFLOPS is 1.3% above AMD's 7.885 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth favors Intel by 29.6%, while pixel rate favors AMD by 12.8%. Texture rate is effectively a tie, with Intel ahead by 1.3%. These numbers indicate a trade-off rather than a clear overall winner, with AMD dominating single-precision compute and Intel leading in bandwidth and half-precision throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, which is 97.4% higher than the Intel Arc A530M's 3.994 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A530M provides 224.0 GB/s, which is 29.6% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 172.8 GB/s. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the Intel Arc A530M's benchmark standing?

A: It has an average benchmark score of 46614, placing it at the 85th percentile. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 49735 and Vulkan score is 43492.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmarks for the AMD card, and its average score is recorded as zero with a 50th percentile standing.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 28 RT cores, while the Intel Arc A530M has 12.

Q: Are the two cards compatible with the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to different use cases for each GPU. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the stronger choice for FP32 compute, with nearly double the single-precision throughput of the Intel Arc A530M. It also offers more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, more RT cores, and a higher pixel rate. Its 55 W TDP and single-slot, connector-free design suit desktop workstation builds where power efficiency and physical footprint matter. The lack of recorded benchmark scores, however, means its real-world standing is unverified in the database.

The Intel Arc A530M is the stronger choice for memory-bound and half-precision workloads. Its 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, 29.6% above the AMD card, and its 7.987 TFLOPS FP16 output give it advantages in tasks that saturate memory or rely on reduced precision. Its 85th percentile ranking, backed by Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores, shows verified performance that competes closely with AMD Radeon RX 5600M, RX 6550M, NVIDIA RTX A2000, and NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation, all within a 1.6% band.

For users prioritizing raw FP32 throughput, more execution resources, and a desktop workstation form factor, the AMD card is the data-backed choice. For users needing higher memory bandwidth, verified benchmark scores, and a mobile integrated solution, the Intel part stands out. Neither card dominates the other across all metrics; the selection depends on which workloads matter more.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7400 | Intel Arc A530M |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) | Alchemist (Arc 5 Mobile) |

| Process node | 6 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 11,500 million |

| Die size | 204 mm² | 269 mm² |

| Transistor density | 65.2M / mm² | 42.8M / mm² |

| Base clock | 330 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1100 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1792 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 112 | 96 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| RT cores | 28 | 12 |

| 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 | 65 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power connectors | None | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

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

| Release date | 2025-08-02 | 2023-07-31 |

| Production status | Active | Active |