AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc B770 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no completed benchmark runs for either the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 or the Intel Arc B770. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, with zero wins recorded for each side. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, and both have an average benchmark score of zero. This means the quantitative comparison must rely entirely on the architectural specifications and compute capabilities listed in the database, rather than measured application performance.

The most significant gap in raw compute throughput appears in FP32 performance. The Intel Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS, which is roughly 2.5 times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. The gap widens further in FP16 work: the Arc B770 reaches 39.32 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the Radeon PRO W7400 is capped at 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. That places the Intel part at exactly 5 times the FP16 throughput of the AMD card.

Pixel and texture throughput follow the same pattern. The Arc B770 posts 307.2 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s for the Radeon PRO W7400, a 4.4 times advantage. Texture rate stands at 614.4 GTexel/s for Intel versus 123.2 GTexel/s for AMD, a 5.0 times multiplier. These are large, consistent margins across every rasterization metric in the database.

Memory bandwidth shows a similar imbalance but with a different ratio. The Intel card uses a 256 bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD card uses a 128 bit bus with 172.8 GB/s. That gives Intel roughly 3.0 times the bandwidth of the AMD part.

The only area where the AMD card holds any apparent advantage is power consumption. The Radeon PRO W7400 lists a TDP of 55 W, compared to 225 W for the Intel Arc B770. The AMD card also requires no auxiliary power connectors and suggests a 250 W power supply, while Intel needs a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin configuration and a 550 W power supply. These figures frame the AMD card as a low-power solution, but the database contains no efficiency benchmarks to translate that into a per-watt performance metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc B770 lists 19.66 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.5 times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Intel Arc B770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card provides 3.0 times the bandwidth and double the capacity.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W, uses no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The Intel Arc B770 has a TDP of 225 W, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in the database.

Q: Which card has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc B770 has 4096 shading units and 32 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units and 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel card also has 256 TMUs and 128 ROPs versus 112 TMUs and 64 ROPs for AMD.

Q: What are the process nodes and die sizes?

A: The Intel Arc B770 uses a 5 nm process with an unspecified transistor count and a 368 mm² die. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 204 mm² and contains 13,300 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The architecture uses a 1:1 ratio for FP16 to FP32, meaning both precision levels run at the same 7.885 TFLOPS throughput.

The Intel Arc B770 uses Xe2-HPG architecture with the BMG-G31 chip, belonging to the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 368 mm². The transistor count is listed as unknown, so density cannot be calculated. The Xe2-HPG architecture uses a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, allowing FP16 compute to reach 39.32 TFLOPS while FP32 sits at 19.66 TFLOPS.

Ray tracing hardware differs in count but not in fundamental approach. The AMD card includes 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel card includes 32. The AMD card has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Intel card has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. These counts directly explain the pixel and texture rate gaps observed in the specifications.

Both cards list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, so API feature levels are identical. The AMD card predates the Intel card in the database, with the Radeon PRO W7400 released on 2025-08-02 and the Arc B770 dated 2025-12-31. The AMD card's predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega, while the Intel card follows the Alchemist generation.

The process node difference (6 nm for AMD, 5 nm for Intel) is notable, but the database does not include efficiency measurements to compare actual power-per-transistor behavior. The AMD card's lower TDP of 55 W versus 225 W for Intel suggests a deliberate design target for low-power professional workstations, while the Intel card appears oriented toward higher absolute performance.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds differ substantially. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Intel Arc B770 has a base clock of 2100 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The Intel card runs at roughly 2.2 times the boost clock of the AMD card.

Memory configuration differs in capacity, bus width, and bandwidth. The AMD card has 8 GB GDDR6 at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) on a 128 bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s. The Intel card has 16 GB GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) on a 256 bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s. The Intel card has double the capacity, double the bus width, and 3.0 times the bandwidth.

Compute unit counts differ across the board. The AMD card has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. The Intel card has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 32 RT cores. The Intel card has 2.3 times the shading units, 2.3 times the TMUs, 2.0 times the ROPs, and 1.1 times the RT cores.

Output rates reflect those counts. The AMD card delivers 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s. The Intel card delivers 307.2 GPixel/s and 614.4 GTexel/s. The Intel card has 4.4 times the pixel rate and 5.0 times the texture rate.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The AMD card has a TDP of 55 W, is single-slot, uses no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. It measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The Intel card has a TDP of 225 W, is dual-slot, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 550 W power supply. Dimensions for the Intel card are not recorded.

Bus interface differs as well. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel card uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs differ in count and type: the AMD card provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the Intel card provides 1x HDMI 2.1a plus 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc B770 wins in every compute and rasterization metric recorded in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 19.66 TFLOPS is 2.5 times that of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. Its FP16 throughput of 39.32 TFLOPS is 5.0 times the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS. The pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 614.4 GTexel/s are 4.4 and 5.0 times the AMD figures, respectively. The 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 3.0 times the AMD bandwidth. The 16 GB memory capacity is double the AMD capacity. These margins make the Intel card the clear choice for workloads that scale with raw shader throughput, texture sampling, or memory bandwidth.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 55 W TDP is one quarter of the Intel card's 225 W TDP. It requires no power connectors and only a 250 W power supply, compared to the Intel card's 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin requirement and 550 W suggestion. The AMD card is single-slot with a 168 mm length, while the Intel card is dual-slot with no recorded dimensions. For systems with strict power budgets, limited physical space, or no auxiliary PCIe power available, the AMD card is the only viable option among these two.

The AMD card also holds a slight edge in ray tracing core count relative to its shading unit count. It has 28 RT cores for 1792 shading units, a ratio of one RT core per 64 shading units. The Intel card has 32 RT cores for 4096 shading units, a ratio of one RT core per 128 shading units. The database does not include ray tracing benchmark results, so the practical impact of this ratio remains unmeasured.

The Intel card wins on PCIe bandwidth with a x16 interface versus the AMD card's x8. This may matter for data transfer in compute workloads, though the database does not include bus utilization measurements.

Neither card has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals in the database, so percentile ranking is identical at 50. The absence of measured performance data means the specification sheet provides the only basis for comparison. Based on that sheet, the Intel Arc B770 dominates in absolute performance across every measurable compute and memory metric, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 dominates in power draw, physical size, and connector requirements.