AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc Pro A60M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 or the Intel Arc Pro A60M. Both cards have an average benchmark score of zero, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. With no recorded head-to-head results, no wins are awarded to either product. The absence of measured data means any performance comparison must be derived from architectural specifications and computed rates, not from empirical test results.

The pixel throughput figures can be compared directly. The Intel Arc Pro A60M delivers 83.20 GPixel/s against the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 70.40 GPixel/s. That is a lead of roughly 18% for the Intel part in raw pixel output, which typically benefits fill-rate bound workloads such as heavy fragment shading or high resolution compositing. Texture rate shows a similar pattern: the Arc Pro A60M reaches 166.4 GTexel/s, while the Radeon PRO W7400 produces 123.2 GTexel/s. The Intel card holds a 35% advantage in texel throughput, a meaningful margin for texture-bound scenes.

Compute throughput splits differently. The AMD card outputs 7.885 TFLOPS in FP32, while the Intel part outputs 5.325 TFLOPS. That gives AMD a 48% lead in single-precision compute. FP16 results invert the ranking. The Intel Arc Pro A60M delivers 10.65 TFLOPS with a 2:1 FP16 rate, whereas the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 FP16 rate. Intel wins FP16 by 35%, making it the stronger choice for workloads that can exploit packed half-precision math. The FP16/FP32 ratio difference (2:1 versus 1:1) explains why Intel's raw FP16 output exceeds its FP32 output, while AMD's stays identical.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel as well. The Arc Pro A60M reaches 256.0 GB/s, compared to 172.8 GB/s for the Radeon PRO W7400. That is a 48% bandwidth advantage, which matters for data-heavy shaders and large textures. Both cards use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, so the gap comes entirely from a higher memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) on Intel versus 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) on AMD.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses the DG2-256 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture and belongs to the Alchemist (Pro-Series Mobile) generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process, so the process node is identical. The foundry is the same, which means manufacturing differences do not explain the performance deltas.

Die sizes differ considerably. AMD packs 13,300 million transistors into 204 mm², giving a transistor density of 65.2M / mm². Intel packs 11,500 million transistors into 269 mm², giving a density of 42.8M / mm². AMD achieves a 52% higher transistor density, indicating a more compact layout for the same process. The Intel die is 32% larger physically but holds fewer transistors, a direct consequence of the different architecture choices.

Shader configuration differs. AMD uses 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Intel uses 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. Intel has 14% more shading units and 14% more TMUs, while ROP counts match at 64. AMD has 75% more ray tracing cores, which could help in ray-traced scenes if the architecture scales accordingly. Neither card lists tensor cores.

Clock behavior diverges sharply. The AMD part runs a 330 MHz base clock and a 1100 MHz boost clock. The Intel part runs a 900 MHz base clock and a 1300 MHz boost clock. Intel's base clock is nearly triple AMD's, while its boost clock is 18% higher. The low AMD base clock suggests a power-conscious design that relies on boost behavior under load. The memory clocks differ as well: AMD at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) versus Intel at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Power and form factor are major architectural markers. AMD lists a 55 W TDP, a single-slot design, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Intel lists a 95 W TDP and an IGP form factor with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The AMD card is a standalone board with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the Intel part is integrated into a mobile platform. Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD and PCIe 4.0 x16 for Intel, doubling the available lanes for the Intel part. API support matches exactly: both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 outputs 7.885 TFLOPS in FP32, which is 48% higher than the Intel Arc Pro A60M's 5.325 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M reaches 256.0 GB/s with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, versus 172.8 GB/s for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 with the same memory capacity and bus width.

Q: Are both GPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use TSMC's 6 nm process. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and Intel Arc Pro A60M are fabricated by the same foundry on the same node.

Q: How do the ray tracing cores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M has 16. That gives AMD a 75% advantage in ray tracing core count.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Intel Arc Pro A60M is an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs and no listed dimensions.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no API-level difference between the two.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7400 | Intel Arc Pro A60M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Navi 33 | DG2-256 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Codename | Hotpink Bonefish | Not listed |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) | Alchemist (Pro-Series Mobile) |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 11,500 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 269 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 42.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| RT Cores | 28 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 83.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 166.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 5.325 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 95 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2025-08-02 | 2023-06-05 |

Fields not listed here are identical between the two: both use 8 GB of GDDR6, a 128-bit memory bus, 64 ROPs, a 6 nm TSMC process, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card lists a launch MSRP, tensor cores, a game clock, or a successor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in raw FP32 compute. Its 7.885 TFLOPS exceeds the Intel part by 48%, which makes it the stronger option for single-precision floating point tasks such as general compute, simulation, and conventional graphics pipelines that do not use packed half-precision. AMD also holds the edge in ray tracing core count with 28 cores versus 16, a 75% advantage that could show up in ray-traced rendering workloads. The 55 W TDP is substantially lower than Intel's 95 W, and the card has a defined single-slot physical footprint with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and no external power connectors. The suggested PSU of 250 W indicates a very power-lean system integration. Its release date of 2025-08-02 makes it the newer product by more than two years.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M wins in several throughput categories. Its 83.20 GPixel/s and 166.4 GTexel/s beat the AMD card's 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s, giving it leads of 18% and 35% respectively. Memory bandwidth is also in Intel's favor at 256.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s, a 48% margin. FP16 compute goes to Intel at 10.65 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS, a 35% lead, thanks to its 2:1 FP16 rate. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides twice the lane count of AMD's x8 connection. The higher base clock of 900 MHz versus 330 MHz suggests more consistent throughput at idle or lightly loaded states. The Intel part is a mobile IGP, so it suits compact portable systems where a discrete card cannot be installed.

The Verdict

The recorded data does not include any direct benchmark comparisons, so the verdict rests entirely on specification-derived rates. For compute-heavy workloads dominated by FP32 math, the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the clear choice. It delivers 7.885 TFLOPS, a 48% advantage over Intel, and carries 28 ray tracing cores compared to 16. Its 55 W TDP, single-slot design, and 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it a practical drop-in card for desktop workstations that need low power consumption and standard display connectivity.

For bandwidth-bound rendering, texture-heavy scenes, or half-precision compute, the Intel Arc Pro A60M has the stronger profile. Its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 166.4 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the AMD card by significant margins, and its 10.65 TFLOPS FP16 output is the highest compute figure in either list. The mobile IGP form factor limits it to portable devices, but that is exactly where it fits: a low-profile part with no separate power connectors and display outputs that depend on the host platform.

The physical requirements separate them clearly. The AMD card is a discrete single-slot board 168 mm long with a suggested 250 W PSU. The Intel part is an integrated GPU with no listed dimensions. A user building a compact desktop workstation with room for a short card should look at the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. A user specifying a mobile workstation should look at the Intel Arc Pro A60M. The two products serve different physical markets, and their specification strengths align with those markets: AMD leads in FP32 and ray tracing cores, Intel leads in bandwidth, texture rate, pixel rate, and FP16. Neither card has a recorded benchmark score, so these conclusions are drawn from the measured rates and architectural counts in the database, not from runtime performance data.