AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile occupy distinctly different positions in the GPU landscape, and the recorded data reveals a clear split in their intended applications. The Radeon PRO W7400 is a discrete, single-slot workstation card built around the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture. It delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, a figure that places it firmly in the professional rendering and compute segment. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into the Meteor Lake chip, using the Xe-LPG architecture. Its FP32 output of 1.792 TFLOPS is substantially lower, but it operates as part of a mobile processor package where the GPU shares system memory and the power envelope is managed differently.

Benchmark results indicate that the Radeon PRO W7400 wins in every scenario that demands raw throughput. Its pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s is more than double the Intel part's 28.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with the AMD card delivering 123.2 GTexel/s against Intel's 56.00 GTexel/s. These figures translate directly to workloads such as 3D rendering, video processing, and scientific visualization, where the discrete card's dedicated memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s provides a substantial advantage over the Intel part's system-dependent shared memory architecture.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile wins in scenarios where integration and power flexibility matter more than absolute performance. Its 65 W TDP is higher than the AMD card's 55 W, but it requires no additional power connectors and uses the Ring Bus interface, making it suitable for compact mobile platforms. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400, with its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and 250 W suggested PSU, is a board-level component that needs a dedicated slot and power delivery infrastructure. The data shows no benchmark wins for either part in the head-to-head comparison, but the architectural differences make the use-case split clear: the AMD card targets professional workstations, while the Intel IGP serves as a capable integrated solution for portable devices.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge at nearly every architectural level. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors packed into a 204 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip, built on Intel's 10 nm process, though the database records no transistor count, die size, or density figures for this part. This absence of data reflects the integrated nature of the Intel GPU, which shares the processor die rather than existing as a standalone component.

The compute units differ significantly. The AMD card features 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs), along with 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no dedicated ray tracing cores listed. The FP16 performance ratio reveals a fundamental design choice: the AMD card delivers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 7.885 TFLOPS, while the Intel part doubles its FP16 throughput to 3.584 TFLOPS against 1.792 TFLOPS FP32, a 2:1 ratio. This suggests the Intel architecture is optimized for mixed-precision workloads where reduced precision can accelerate certain operations, whereas the AMD card treats FP16 and FP32 as equally capable paths.

Memory architecture presents the starkest contrast. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses system shared memory, with the bus width and bandwidth both listed as system dependent. This means the Intel GPU's memory performance varies with the host system's configuration, while the AMD card offers deterministic, dedicated bandwidth. Clock behavior also differs: the AMD card has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost of 1100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base and 1750 MHz boost, with no dedicated memory clock since it shares system memory.

API support shows a notable split in DirectX versions. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon PRO W7400 offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the Intel IGP's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its role in mobile systems where the display path is determined by the laptop or tablet design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for these two GPUs, and neither part has an average benchmark score or wins in the comparison fields. This absence of direct measurement data means the analysis must rely on the specification-derived throughput figures to establish relative performance.

The FP32 compute gap is the clearest indicator: the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS against the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile's 1.792 TFLOPS. This represents a 4.4x advantage for the AMD card, a margin that would translate into substantially faster execution of single-precision compute workloads. The FP16 comparison is similarly lopsided: the AMD card produces 7.885 TFLOPS, while the Intel part reaches 3.584 TFLOPS, giving the AMD part a 2.2x lead even against Intel's rate-doubled FP16 path.

Pixel throughput shows the AMD card at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s for Intel, a 2.5x difference. Texture fill rates follow a similar pattern: 123.2 GTexel/s for AMD against 56.00 GTexel/s for Intel, a 2.2x gap. These ratios align with the differences in ROP and TMU counts, where the AMD card has 4x the ROPs and 3.5x the TMUs of the Intel part. The shading unit disparity is even larger at 3.5x, but the actual FP32 throughput gap of 4.4x exceeds the raw unit count ratio, indicating that the AMD card's higher boost clock and dedicated memory bandwidth contribute additional performance headroom.

Memory bandwidth is the widest recorded gap. The AMD card's 172.8 GB/s dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth stands against the Intel part's system dependent bandwidth, which cannot be quantified from the database. In practice, shared memory implementations typically deliver lower effective bandwidth than dedicated graphics memory, so the AMD card's advantage in memory-intensive workloads is likely larger than the compute ratios suggest. The Radeon PRO W7400 also has a 128-bit memory bus, while the Intel part's bus width is system dependent, reinforcing the discrete card's advantage in bandwidth-bound scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field recorded in the database. The manufacturing process separates them: the AMD card uses 6 nm at TSMC, while the Intel part uses 10 nm at Intel. Transistor counts are recorded only for the AMD card at 13,300 million, with no figure available for the Intel part. Die size follows the same pattern: 204 mm² for AMD, none recorded for Intel. The AMD card's transistor density of 65.2M per mm² has no Intel counterpart in the database.

Clock specifications show different operating points. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, with memory at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a 300 MHz base and 1750 MHz boost, with memory listed as system shared. The higher boost clock on the Intel part does not compensate for its much lower compute unit count.

Memory configuration is the most divergent specification area. The AMD card uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bus width and bandwidth. This fundamental difference affects all memory-sensitive workloads.

Compute resources differ by multiples: the AMD card has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no RT cores recorded. Pixel and texture rates follow these counts, with the AMD card at 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s against Intel's 28.00 GPixel/s and 56.00 GTexel/s.

FP32 and FP16 throughput ratios differ, as noted earlier: the AMD card runs both at 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Intel part runs FP32 at 1.792 TFLOPS and FP16 at 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1). Power specifications show the AMD card at 55 W TDP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Intel part lists 65 W TDP with no power connector or PSU data. The AMD card is single-slot with specific dimensions (168 mm length, 69 mm height, 20 mm width), while the Intel part is an IGP with no recorded dimensions.

Interface and output specifications separate them further: the AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8 with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface with portable device dependent outputs. DirectX support differs, with the AMD card at 12 Ultimate (12_2) and the Intel part at 12 (12_1). Release dates place the AMD card at 2025-08-02 and the Intel part at 2023-12-13. The AMD card's predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega, while the Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M. Both are marked as active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 4.4x higher than the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile's 1.792 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory configuration differ between the two?

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 64EU Mobile uses system shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: What is the FP16 performance ratio for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 7.885 TFLOPS. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile runs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 3.584 TFLOPS FP16 against 1.792 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX version?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power specifications for each part?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and has a 250 W suggested PSU. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a 65 W TDP with no power connector or suggested PSU data recorded.

Q: How do the pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile achieves 28.00 GPixel/s and 56.00 GTexel/s, giving the AMD card a 2.5x pixel rate advantage and a 2.2x texture rate advantage.

Q: What manufacturing processes are used?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The AMD card has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die with a density of 65.2M per mm²; no transistor, die size, or density figures are recorded for the Intel part.

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

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units and 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has 512 shading units and no ray tracing cores recorded.