AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics processing, one as a discrete workstation adapter and the other as an integrated solution for mobile processors. The database shows both products are currently Active in production, but their performance envelopes, physical characteristics, and intended deployment scenarios diverge sharply. The Radeon PRO W7400 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile also holds a 50th percentile ranking, indicating that on a broad scale, they occupy a similar mid-range tier despite their architectural differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for this comparison is sparse, as the head-to-head benchmark array is empty and neither product has an average benchmark score above zero. However, the theoretical specifications provided in the database allow for a direct mathematical comparison of raw throughput capabilities. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS. This positions the AMD part at approximately 3.3 times the single-precision floating-point throughput of the Intel solution. In terms of pixel processing, the Radeon PRO W7400 achieves a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, nearly double the 36.80 GPixel/s of the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. The texture rate follows a similar pattern, with the AMD card reaching 123.2 GTexel/s against the Intel chip's 73.60 GTexel/s.

The gap narrows when examining FP16 performance. The Radeon PRO W7400 maintains a 1:1 ratio with its FP32 throughput, still delivering 7.885 TFLOPS. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, however, doubles its throughput to 4.710 TFLOPS at FP16 using a 2:1 ratio. This means the Intel solution is comparatively stronger in half-precision workloads, reaching about 60% of the AMD card's FP16 output, whereas in FP32 it only reaches about 30%. This suggests that the Intel architecture is tuned for workloads that can leverage reduced precision, while the AMD card offers more balanced raw performance across precision levels.

Memory bandwidth presents another decisive margin. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus, producing 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. Since no fixed figure is recorded for the Intel side, the measurable advantage belongs entirely to the AMD card, which offers a dedicated, consistent memory subsystem. The clock speeds also differ: the AMD card has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, while the Intel chip has a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2300 MHz. The Intel boost clock is more than double the AMD boost, but its lower shading unit count limits overall output.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different manufacturing ecosystems. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process node. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Panther Lake chip built on Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated by Intel on a 3 nm process node. The transistor counts tell a story of scale: the AMD chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are both listed as unknown in the database, so no direct density comparison is possible.

The execution resources differ by a factor of more than three. The Radeon PRO W7400 contains 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile contains 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 4 ray tracing cores. This means the AMD card has 3.5 times the shading units, 3.5 times the TMUs, 4 times the ROPs, and 7 times the ray tracing cores. The ray tracing gap is particularly notable, suggesting the AMD card can handle significantly more parallel ray tracing work per cycle.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses dedicated GDDR6 memory with a fixed 128 bit bus and a recorded bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance hinges on the host platform's memory configuration rather than an onboard solution. The Radeon card also has a memory clock of 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective transfer, while the Intel solution has no discrete memory clock listed. Power characteristics follow the same split: the AMD card has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, while the Intel chip has a TDP of 25 W and no suggested PSU, consistent with its integrated nature.

Both products support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level compatibility is identical. The physical form factors could not be more different. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot, 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide card with no power connectors, drawing all power from the PCIe slot. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is an IGP, integrated directly into the processor with no slot width, no dimensions recorded, and no separate power connectors. The bus interface also differs, with the AMD card using PCIe 4.0 x8 and the Intel chip using IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in any scenario that demands dedicated, sustained compute throughput. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate make it the stronger choice for rendering workloads, 3D modeling, and GPU-accelerated compute tasks that rely on single-precision arithmetic. The 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance without contention from a host CPU or other system processes. The 28 ray tracing cores also give it a substantial edge in ray-traced rendering, outpacing the Intel chip's 4 ray tracing cores by a factor of seven.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is less than half of the AMD card's 55 W, making it suitable for portable devices where power draw is a primary constraint. The boost clock of 2300 MHz is notably higher than the AMD card's 1100 MHz, and its FP16 output of 4.710 TFLOPS shows that it can handle half-precision workloads with reasonable competence. For applications that can use FP16 arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or media processing, the Intel solution closes much of the gap. The system shared memory model also means it has no fixed memory limit, scaling with whatever RAM the host system provides, although this comes with the caveat of system dependent bandwidth.

The database shows both products at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, which is a curious outcome given the large specification gaps. This may reflect the fact that percentile rankings are not directly comparable across fundamentally different product categories, where one is a discrete workstation GPU and the other is an integrated mobile solution. The wins are not evenly distributed: the AMD card dominates in raw throughput metrics, while the Intel chip dominates in power consumption and form factor flexibility.

FAQ

Q: How do the FP32 compute performances compare between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS. The AMD card provides approximately 3.3 times the single-precision throughput.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has 4 ray tracing cores. The AMD card has seven times the ray tracing core count.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W and no suggested PSU, as it is an integrated processor graphics solution.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the physical form factors of the two products?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot discrete card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is an IGP with no recorded dimensions, integrated directly into the processor.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation of roles. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the choice for users who need a discrete graphics card with dedicated memory, high FP32 throughput, and extensive ray tracing resources. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 28 ray tracing cores give it a decisive advantage in compute-heavy and rendering-intensive tasks. The 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer ensures that memory bandwidth remains stable at 172.8 GB/s, independent of host system conditions. Its 55 W TDP is modest for a discrete card and it requires no auxiliary power connectors, drawing power directly from the PCIe 4.0 x8 slot. The single-slot design and 168 mm length make it a compact addition to a workstation.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile serves a different purpose entirely. As an IGP on the Panther Lake chip using Xe3-LPG architecture, it is designed for mobile platforms where the 25 W TDP and lack of any discrete card footprint are critical. Its 2.355 TFLOPS FP32 and 4.710 TFLOPS FP16 performance are respectable for an integrated solution, and the 2300 MHz boost clock indicates a willingness to run fast when thermal headroom allows. The system shared memory model means the GPU draws on the host's RAM, which can be an advantage in flexibility but a disadvantage in bandwidth consistency. The 4 ray tracing cores provide basic ray tracing capability, but the workload capacity is limited compared to the AMD part.

Users who require sustained, professional-grade rendering performance should select the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. Users who need graphics capability in a portable, power-constrained device should rely on the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. The database does not record any overlapping use case where the Intel chip would outperform the AMD card in raw throughput, but power draw and integration are the metrics where the Intel product leads. Both products remain Active in production, and their release dates are recorded as August 2025 for the AMD card and January 2026 for the Intel chip.

Specification Differences

The following table summarizes the fields where the two products differ according to the recorded data:

• Chip: Navi 33 vs Panther Lake
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 vs Xe3-LPG
• Codename: Hotpink Bonefish vs not recorded
• Generation: Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) vs Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake)
• Process Node: 6 nm (TSMC) vs 3 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC vs Intel
• Transistors: 13,300 million vs unknown
• Die Size: 204 mm² vs unknown
• Transistor Density: 65.2M per mm² vs not recorded
• Base Clock: 330 MHz vs 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1100 MHz vs 2300 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1350 MHz 10.8 Gbps effective vs system shared
• Memory Size: 8 GB GDDR6 vs system shared
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs system shared
• Bus Width: 128 bit vs system shared
• Bandwidth: 172.8 GB/s vs system dependent
• Shading Units: 1792 vs 512
• TMUs: 112 vs 32
• ROPs: 64 vs 16
• Ray Tracing Cores: 28 vs 4
• Pixel Rate: 70.40 GPixel/s vs 36.80 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 123.2 GTexel/s vs 73.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 7.885 TFLOPS vs 2.355 TFLOPS
• FP16: 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 55 W vs 25 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs IGP
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs not recorded
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 vs IGP
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 vs portable device dependent
• Dimensions: 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm vs not recorded
• Release Date: August 2025 vs January 2026
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega vs not recorded