AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data presents an unusual situation for a head-to-head comparison. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no individual benchmark scores recorded in the database, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has a single measurement. The Intel part's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 733, which places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. This is a remarkably low standing, indicating that the integrated graphics solution sits near the very bottom of the performance hierarchy.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 carries a 50th percentile ranking across all GPUs, which places it squarely in the middle of the database's performance distribution. The absence of a direct head-to-head benchmark result between these two parts means the comparison must be drawn from their architectural specifications, percentile positions, and the Intel part's nearest rival data. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU's average benchmark score of 733 is matched exactly by the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, both scoring 733 as well. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails slightly at 723, representing a 1.4 percent deficit. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads this small cluster with a score of 751, which is 2.4 percent ahead of the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU.

These rival comparisons show that the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is competing with hardware from over a decade ago. The delta percentages are small, all within a few points of each other, but the context is critical. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor on a 3 nm node, and it is trading blows with legacy discrete mobile GPUs. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400, by contrast, is a discrete workstation card with a 50th percentile ranking, suggesting a substantially higher performance tier. The data indicates that the AMD card is not in the same performance class as the Intel integrated solution.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial and explains the performance disparity. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses the Arrow Lake-S chip with Xe-LPG architecture, built on a more advanced 3 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, yielding a density of 73.3 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The AMD card features 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 28 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Intel integrated part has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU does not have a dedicated ray tracing core count listed in the database, though it does support DirectX 12 Ultimate. The AMD card's pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s, while the Intel part manages 30.40 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 123.2 GTexel/s for AMD and 60.80 GTexel/s for Intel. In raw FP32 compute, the AMD card delivers 7.885 TFLOPS, while the Intel part delivers 1.946 TFLOPS. The AMD card's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel part achieves 3.891 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Memory architecture is another fundamental divergence. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock runs at 1350 MHz, which translates to 10.8 Gbps effective. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth described as system dependent. This means the Intel solution must contend with system memory latency and bandwidth constraints, while the AMD card has its own dedicated frame buffer. The AMD card's clock behavior also stands out: a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, while the Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. Despite the Intel part's higher boost clock, its far smaller compute resource pool limits overall throughput.

Power and physical characteristics further separate the two. The AMD card carries a 55 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested power supply of 250 W. It measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has a 65 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor with no slot width, no power connectors, and no dimensions listed. Its display outputs are motherboard dependent, while the AMD card provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel part connects via a Ring Bus. The AMD card was released on August 2, 2025, while the Intel part appeared earlier on October 23, 2024. The AMD card's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, and the Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 occupies the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU sits at the 3rd percentile. The AMD card delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against the Intel part's 1.946 TFLOPS, a fourfold advantage. Its dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth stands against system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The AMD card also provides 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel part has no listed ray tracing core count. For any workload that stresses compute, memory bandwidth, or ray tracing, the data points decisively to the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, with its nearest rivals being the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, AMD Radeon HD 6470M, and NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M, belongs to a much lower performance tier. The delta percentages among these rivals are minimal, ranging from a 1.4 percent advantage over the HD 6470M to a 2.4 percent deficit against the GT 415M. This cluster represents legacy and entry-level performance, not workstation-class throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1,792 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has 512 shading units.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: How do the FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU delivers 1.946 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU have dedicated ray tracing cores?

A: The database does not list a ray tracing core count for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU in the database?

A: The nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, both with an average score of 733, the AMD Radeon HD 6470M at 723, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M at 751.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has a boost clock of 1900 MHz, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a boost clock of 1100 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in every measurable performance category recorded in the database. Its FP32 compute of 7.885 TFLOPS is four times the Intel part's 1.946 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s more than doubles the Intel part's 30.40 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s doubles the Intel part's 60.80 GTexel/s. The AMD card's 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance, unlike the Intel part's system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The AMD card also has 28 ray tracing cores, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus the Intel part's 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The AMD card's 50th percentile ranking against 3rd percentile for the Intel part summarizes the overall performance gap.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU wins in areas of integration and power efficiency at the system level. It is an integrated graphics processor on a 3 nm process, requiring no slot width, no power connectors, and no separate card dimensions. Its TDP of 65 W is higher than the AMD card's 55 W, but it eliminates the need for a discrete card slot. The Intel part has a higher boost clock at 1900 MHz versus 1100 MHz, and it uses a Ring Bus interface rather than a PCIe 4.0 x8 connection. Its FP16 performance of 3.891 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio exceeds its FP32 output, which could benefit workloads that use mixed precision. The Intel part also has a higher transistor density at 73.3 million per square millimeter, though this reflects the more advanced 3 nm node rather than architectural superiority.

For discrete workstation use, the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the clear choice from the data. It offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a single-slot design, and no external power requirement. For integrated graphics duty in a system where a discrete card is impractical, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU provides the convenience of an IGP with DirectX 12 Ultimate support. Its nearest rivals in the database are all older or lower-tier parts, which confirms its position as an entry-level solution. The AMD card's lack of recorded individual benchmarks in the database, despite its 50th percentile ranking, leaves some quantitative gaps, but the architectural specifications provide ample evidence of its superior compute and memory capabilities. The data shows two products aimed at entirely different segments: a workstation-class discrete GPU and an integrated graphics processor for mainstream processors.