AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 or the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile. Both entries have an average benchmark score of zero and no head-to-head results listed. This absence of measured data means the performance comparison must rely entirely on the architectural specifications and computed throughput rates recorded in the database.

The raw compute figures show a decisive separation between the two parts. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile manages 588.8 GFLOPS. This places the AMD part at roughly 13.4 times the FP32 compute capacity of the Intel solution, a gap that directly reflects the massive difference in shading units, 1792 versus 128, and texture mapping units, 112 versus 8.

Pixel throughput tells a similar story. The AMD card records 70.40 GPixel/s, whereas the Intel integrated graphics part reaches 9.200 GPixel/s. That is a 7.65 times advantage for the discrete AMD card. Texture rate shows the largest proportional gap: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s, a 6.7 times difference. These ratios indicate that the AMD part is not merely faster in one narrow metric but holds a consistent multi-factor lead across all rasterization throughput categories.

The FP16 comparison introduces a nuance. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 achieves 7.885 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput equals FP32 throughput. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile records 1,177.6 GFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. Even accounting for Intel's FP16 advantage in ratio terms, the AMD part still delivers roughly 6.7 times the raw FP16 throughput. The architecture choice differs: AMD prioritizes equal FP16 and FP32 rates, while Intel doubles FP16 performance relative to FP32.

Neither part holds a win in the head-to-head benchmark tally, as the database lists zero wins for each. The specification-derived verdict, however, is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 holds a commanding lead in every measurable throughput category, from pixel rate to texture rate to raw floating-point compute. The Intel part's only comparative advantages lie in its lower power draw and its integrated form factor.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. 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 generation, specifically the Navi III Series. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip on Xe3-LPG architecture, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M generation. The AMD part is a discrete, single-slot card, while the Intel part is an integrated graphics processor, or IGP, with no slot footprint.

Manufacturing process separates them sharply. The AMD chip is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel chip uses a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The AMD die measures 204 mm² and contains 13,300 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The database records the Intel chip's transistor count and die size as unknown, so no direct density comparison is possible. The process node advantage belongs to Intel, but the AMD part compensates with a much larger die and far more functional units.

The memory architecture differs completely. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory, with the bus width also marked as system shared and bandwidth described as system dependent. This means the Intel part's memory performance is contingent on the host system's memory configuration, whereas the AMD card has fixed, dedicated bandwidth regardless of system setup.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD card has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, with memory running at 1350 MHz, effectively 10.8 Gbps. The Intel part has a lower base clock of 300 MHz but a much higher boost clock of 2300 MHz. The boost clock advantage does not compensate for the massive difference in execution resources. The AMD part's functional unit counts dwarf the Intel part: 1792 shading units versus 128, 112 TMUs versus 8, 64 ROPs versus 4, and 28 ray tracing cores versus 1.

API support is identical on paper. Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate, specifically feature level 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The power situation, however, is not identical. The AMD card has a TDP of 55 W, requires no power connectors, and lists a suggested power supply of 250 W. The Intel part has a 25 W TDP and also requires no power connectors, but has no suggested PSU figure since it draws power through the host system. The AMD card's display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the Intel part's outputs are described as portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 records 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 588.8 GFLOPS for the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile. The AMD part delivers roughly 13.4 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The AMD card uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning performance scales with the host platform's memory.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The AMD Navi 33 chip is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Wildcat Lake chip uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The AMD die measures 204 mm² and contains 13,300 million transistors; the Intel die size and transistor count are unknown.

Q: Which part supports ray tracing?

A: Both support ray tracing. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 1 ray tracing core.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and lists a suggested power supply of 250 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W and no suggested PSU figure, as it is an integrated part drawing power from the host system.

Q: How does FP16 throughput compare?

A: The AMD part achieves 7.885 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. The Intel part reaches 1,177.6 GFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio over FP32. Despite Intel's ratio advantage, the AMD part still delivers about 6.7 times the raw FP16 throughput.

Specification Differences

The database records the following specification differences between the two parts.

Chip and Architecture: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codename Hotpink Bonefish. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip on Xe3-LPG architecture, with no codename recorded.

Generation: AMD belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, Navi III Series. Intel belongs to Arc Graphics-M, Wildcat Lake generation.

Process Node: AMD uses 6 nm at TSMC. Intel uses 3 nm at Intel.

Transistors and Die Size: AMD has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2 million per mm². Intel's transistor count and die size are unknown, with no density figure recorded.

Clocks: AMD base clock is 330 MHz, boost clock is 1100 MHz, memory clock is 1350 MHz at 10.8 Gbps effective. Intel base clock is 300 MHz, boost clock is 2300 MHz, memory clock is system shared.

Memory: AMD has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Shading Units: AMD has 1792, Intel has 128.

TMUs: AMD has 112, Intel has 8.

ROPs: AMD has 64, Intel has 4.

Ray Tracing Cores: AMD has 28, Intel has 1.

Pixel Rate: AMD records 70.40 GPixel/s, Intel records 9.200 GPixel/s.

Texture Rate: AMD records 123.2 GTexel/s, Intel records 18.40 GTexel/s.

FP32: AMD records 7.885 TFLOPS, Intel records 588.8 GFLOPS.

FP16: AMD records 7.885 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, Intel records 1,177.6 GFLOPS at 2:1 ratio.

TDP: AMD is 55 W, Intel is 25 W.

Slot Width: AMD is single-slot, Intel is IGP.

Power Connectors: Both are none, but AMD lists a suggested PSU of 250 W while Intel has no suggested PSU.

Bus Interface: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, Intel uses IGP.

Display Outputs: AMD has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, Intel is portable device dependent.

Dimensions: AMD measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. Intel has no recorded dimensions.

Release Date: AMD released on 2025-08-02, Intel releases on 2026-04-15.

Predecessor: AMD's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, Intel's is HD Graphics-M.

The two parts share identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both have no launch MSRP recorded, and both are listed as active in production.

The Verdict

The data in the database points to two very different products serving different purposes. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a discrete, single-slot workstation card with dedicated GDDR6 memory, a 55 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested power supply. It delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate. These figures place it in a performance class that the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile cannot approach.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is an integrated graphics processor with a 25 W TDP, system shared memory, and no discrete form factor. Its 588.8 GFLOPS FP32 and 9.200 GPixel/s pixel rate are roughly one-thirteenth and one-seventh of the AMD card's respective figures. The Intel part's advantage is its 3 nm process node, its higher boost clock of 2300 MHz, and its integration into a portable device where no add-in card is possible.

The recorded data indicates that any workload requiring significant rasterization or compute throughput, such as 3D rendering, video processing, or GPU-accelerated compute, will favor the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 overwhelmingly. The AMD card's 28 ray tracing cores versus the Intel part's single core further reinforces this direction for ray-traced workloads.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile suits systems where power draw is constrained to 25 W, where space for a discrete card does not exist, and where memory bandwidth is supplied by the host platform. Its FP16 ratio of 2:1 over FP32 gives it a relative efficiency advantage in FP16-heavy tasks, though the absolute FP16 throughput still trails the AMD part by a factor of roughly 6.7.

The percentile ranking for both parts is identical at 50, and neither has any nearest rivals recorded. The database contains no benchmark scores, so the verdict rests entirely on architectural specifications and throughput calculations. Those calculations consistently show the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 as the higher-performance part by a wide margin in every measured category. The Intel part is the lower-power, integrated alternative with a newer manufacturing process but a fraction of the execution resources.