AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc Pro B390 Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and Intel Arc Pro B390 occupy the same performance percentile in the database, both sitting at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals in the database, so the analysis below relies strictly on their architectural and specification sheets.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is built around a discrete GPU design with dedicated video memory. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus delivers 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. That dedicated memory pool gives it a clear advantage in workloads where the GPU must repeatedly access large datasets without competing with the CPU for system memory. The W7400 also has a higher pixel throughput, 70.40 GPixel/s versus the Intel Arc Pro B390's 60.00 GPixel/s, which favors fill-rate bound rendering tasks such as high-resolution rasterization and heavy post-processing effects.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 instead relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent" and a bus width of "System Shared". This design removes the need for a separate memory pool and allows the GPU to draw from the host's RAM, which can simplify memory management in unified memory architectures. Its boost clock reaches 2500 MHz, more than double the W7400's 1100 MHz boost, and its FP16 throughput is 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which is roughly double the W7400's FP16 figure of 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1). For workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, the Arc Pro B390 has the raw mathematical edge.

The W7400 also wins on texture rate, 123.2 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s, though the margin is slim. Its ROP count is 64 versus the Intel part's 24, reinforcing the pixel throughput advantage. The W7400 packs 112 TMUs versus 48 on the Intel side, giving it a substantial lead in texture fetch operations per clock.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish", and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The W7400 is a discrete add-in card with a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a 55 W TDP.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip built on Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel, though the transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown. The B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), meaning it has no slot width, no power connectors, no separate dimensions, and no suggested PSU rating in the database. Its memory interface is entirely system shared, and its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent".

The RDNA 3.0 architecture on the W7400 uses a 1:1 ratio for FP16 to FP32, meaning half-precision and full-precision throughput are equal. The Xe3-LPG architecture on the B390 uses a 2:1 ratio, where FP16 throughput is double FP32. This indicates different design priorities: the AMD part treats FP16 as a direct extension of FP32, while the Intel part accelerates half-precision with separate hardware paths. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The AMD part leads in every one of these counts, often by a wide margin, particularly in TMUs and ROPs where it has more than double the Intel figures.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently holds no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for these two parts, and neither has individual benchmark scores or nearest rivals. For that reason, the comparison must be drawn from the specification-derived performance numbers recorded in the database.

The clearest mathematical win for the AMD W7400 is in pixel throughput. It delivers 70.40 GPixel/s against the Intel B390's 60.00 GPixel/s, a lead of roughly 17%. That advantage comes from the W7400's 64 ROPs versus the B390's 24, although the B390's higher boost clock (2500 MHz versus 1100 MHz) narrows the gap. Still, the ROP count difference is so large that the AMD part maintains the lead.

Texture rate is closer. The W7400 outputs 123.2 GTexel/s, while the B390 reaches 120.0 GTexel/s. The AMD part is ahead by about 2.7%, a margin that reflects its 112 TMUs versus 48, partially offset by the Intel part's much higher boost clock.

FP32 compute is nearly identical. The W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS, and the B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS. The AMD part leads by about 2.7%, which is a small but real advantage for general compute workloads that rely on single-precision math.

FP16 compute flips the result decisively. The B390 reaches 15.36 TFLOPS with its 2:1 architecture, while the W7400 stays at 7.885 TFLOPS with its 1:1 ratio. The Intel part has roughly 95% higher FP16 throughput, making it the clear choice for half-precision inference or training workloads that can tolerate reduced precision.

Memory bandwidth favors the W7400 at 172.8 GB/s, but the B390's bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent", so a direct comparison depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration. In a system with fast DDR5 memory, the shared pool could approach or exceed the W7400's dedicated bandwidth; in a slower configuration, it would fall well short. The database does not record a fixed figure for the B390, so the W7400's dedicated 172.8 GB/s stands as the only fixed bandwidth number in the comparison.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

The W7400 uses a 6 nm TSMC process, while the B390 uses a 3 nm Intel process. The W7400 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die with a density of 65.2M per mm²; the B390's transistor count and die size are unknown.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The B390 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, with memory clocked as "System Shared".

Memory configuration is a major split. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The B390 has system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Compute resources differ: the W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores.

FP32 throughput is close: 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400 versus 7.680 TFLOPS for the B390. FP16 throughput diverges: 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) for the W7400 versus 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) for the B390.

Power and form factor also differ. The W7400 has a 55 W TDP, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and lists a 250 W suggested PSU. The B390 has an 80 W TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU.

The W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The B390 uses an IGP bus interface and has "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs.

The W7400 is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long, 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, and 20 mm (0.8 inches) wide. The B390 has no recorded dimensions.

Release dates differ: the W7400 was released on 2025-08-02, and the B390 on 2026-01-26. The W7400's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega; the B390's predecessor is the HD Graphics-WM. Both parts are listed as Active in production status, and both have no successor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS. The AMD part leads by a small margin.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP16 performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which is nearly double the AMD W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B390 have dedicated video memory?

A: No. The B390 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width. The AMD W7400 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the pixel rates of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD W7400 has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, and the Intel B390 has a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD W7400 has a 55 W TDP, while the Intel B390 has an 80 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel B390 has 12.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the stronger discrete rendering solution. Its dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, higher pixel rate (70.40 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (123.2 GTexel/s), and nearly double the ROP count (64 versus 24) and TMU count (112 versus 48) make it the better choice for traditional rasterization, texture-heavy workloads, and any task that benefits from a fixed, high-bandwidth memory pool. Its FP32 compute is also slightly ahead, at 7.885 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 is the better choice for FP16-heavy compute. Its 15.36 TFLOPS half-precision throughput is roughly double the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS, and its 2500 MHz boost clock indicates a design tuned for high-frequency math throughput. As an integrated part with system shared memory, it suits unified memory architectures where the CPU and GPU share the same pool, and its 3 nm Intel process node gives it a manufacturing advantage in density. Its 80 W TDP is higher than the W7400's 55 W, but it requires no separate card slot or power connectors.

The database shows no recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals for either part, so these conclusions rest entirely on the specification-derived performance figures. On that basis, the W7400 wins on fixed memory bandwidth, pixel fill, texture fill, and ROP throughput. The B390 wins on FP16 compute and boost clock. Users with rasterization and memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads should prefer the AMD part; users with half-precision compute workloads should prefer the Intel part.