AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc Pro B50 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Arc Pro B50. The database has no shared test scores for these two workstation GPUs, so a direct comparison of measured performance is not possible from the available information.

The Intel Arc Pro B50 has a recorded dataset with several benchmark scores. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result is 1604 points. In PassMark tests, it reaches 12553 points in G3D, 6037 points in GPU Compute, 717 in G2D, 144 in DirectX 9, 100 in DirectX 11, 64 in DirectX 12, and 58 in DirectX 10. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 2660 points.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no benchmark entries in the database, and therefore no percentile rating can be established beyond its overall percentileVsAllGpus value of 50. The Intel Arc Pro B50 sits at the 17th percentile among all GPUs, placing it in the lower performance tier. Its nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA products: the GeForce GT 1030 with an average score of 2662 and a delta of -0.1%, the Quadro K1100M at 2664 with -0.2%, the GeForce GT 440 at 2645 with +0.6%, and the GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER at 2690 with -1.1%. These delta values indicate the Arc Pro B50 performs essentially on par with the GT 1030 and Quadro K1100M, slightly above the GT 440, and just under the RTX 5070 SUPER in average score.

Without matching test data for the AMD card, the head-to-head section relies on architectural specifications and clock behavior to project relative performance. The Intel card delivers higher raw shading throughput. Its FP32 output is 10.65 TFLOPS compared to 7.885 TFLOPS for the AMD card, a difference of roughly 35%. Texture rate shows a larger gap: the Intel card processes 332.8 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s for the AMD card. The pixel rate goes the other direction, with the AMD card at 70.40 GPixel/s against 41.60 GPixel/s for the Intel card.

Memory bandwidth favors the Intel card. Its 224.0 GB/s exceeds the AMD card's 172.8 GB/s by about 30%. Both use 128-bit memory buses, but the Intel card runs its GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective versus 10.8 Gbps effective on the AMD card.

Clock speeds show a notable divergence. The Intel card has a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost of 2600 MHz. The AMD card lists a base of 330 MHz and a boost of 1100 MHz. These figures reflect different power management approaches rather than direct capability comparisons, as the AMD card's lower clocks are paired with a 55 W TDP against the Intel card's 70 W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. AMD uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. Intel uses the BMG-G21 chip based on Xe2-HPG, part of the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation.

Manufacturing processes differ slightly. The AMD chip is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel chip uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor counts and die sizes reflect these process differences. The Intel chip packs 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 72.1M per mm². The AMD chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, for a density of 65.2M per mm².

Shader and fixed-function hardware configurations differ substantially. The Intel card has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The AMD card has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware also differs: the AMD card has 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel card has 16.

Compute precision handling differs between the architectures. The AMD card executes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both rated at 7.885 TFLOPS. The Intel card runs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 21.30 TFLOPS against its 10.65 TFLOPS FP32 figure.

Memory capacity gives the Intel card a clear advantage. It carries 16 GB of GDDR6, double the 8 GB on the AMD card. Both use 128-bit buses, but the Intel card's higher memory clock produces 224.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s.

Interface and physical specifications diverge as well. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel card uses PCIe 5.0 x8. The AMD card is single-slot with dimensions of 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width. The Intel card is dual-slot, measuring 167 mm by 69 mm by 40 mm. Neither card requires external power connectors, and both suggest a 250 W power supply. Display outputs differ: the AMD card provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the Intel card offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Arc Pro B50 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 10.65 TFLOPS is about 35% higher than the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS. Texture fill rate shows a more dramatic advantage, with the Intel card at 332.8 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a 2.7x difference. For workloads that scale with FP16 throughput, the Intel card's 21.30 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio provides a substantial edge over the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS at 1:1.

Memory-intensive workloads favor the Intel card. Its 16 GB capacity doubles the AMD card's 8 GB, and its 224.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the AMD card's 172.8 GB/s by roughly 30%. Larger datasets, higher resolution textures, and workloads with larger working sets will benefit from this capacity and bandwidth advantage.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in pixel processing. Its 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate is about 69% higher than the Intel card's 41.60 GPixel/s. This advantage comes from the AMD card's 64 ROPs versus 16 on the Intel card. Rasterization-heavy workloads, particularly those involving high fill rates or heavy overdraw, will favor the AMD architecture.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel card's 2600 MHz boost clock is far above the AMD card's 1100 MHz boost. However, the AMD card's lower clocks are paired with a 55 W TDP, which is 15 W lower than the Intel card's 70 W TDP. The single-slot design of the AMD card offers a physical footprint advantage over the Intel card's dual-slot cooler.

The AMD card has more ray tracing cores (28 versus 16), which may influence ray-traced workloads, though no benchmark data in the database confirms this effect. The Intel card's PCIe 5.0 x8 interface provides double the per-lane bandwidth of the AMD card's PCIe 4.0 x8, though real-world impact depends on whether the workload saturates the interface.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an uneven comparison. The Intel Arc Pro B50 has measurable benchmark results and a known launch MSRP of 349 USD. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no benchmark entries, no average score, and no percentile rating beyond its mid-table 50th percentile placement.

For compute-bound professional workloads, the Intel card's higher FP32 throughput, larger memory pool, and greater bandwidth make it the data-supported choice. Its 10.65 TFLOPS FP32, 16 GB memory, and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth all exceed the AMD card's corresponding figures. The Intel card also holds a 17th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with nearest rivals clustered around the 2660 average score mark.

For fill-rate-bound tasks, the AMD card's 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 64 ROPs indicate a hardware advantage that the Intel card cannot match with its 16 ROPs. The AMD card also requires less board space with its single-slot design and consumes less power at 55 W versus 70 W.

The absence of benchmark data for the AMD card means its real-world performance cannot be verified from the database. The Intel card's recorded scores, while modest in the overall GPU landscape, provide concrete evidence of its capabilities. Users prioritizing measured performance data will find the Intel card fully documented, while the AMD card remains an unknown quantity in the database's test suite.

The Intel Arc Pro B50's nearest rivals, all within roughly one percent of its average score, suggest it competes at the level of older NVIDIA entry-level cards. The AMD card's 50th percentile placement suggests mid-pack positioning, but without test scores this cannot be corroborated.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 has 16 GB of GDDR6, double the 8 GB found on the AMD Radeon PRO W7400.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS, making the Intel card about 35% higher.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, compared to 41.60 GPixel/s on the Intel Arc Pro B50, a difference of roughly 69% in favor of AMD.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Arc Pro B50?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 has a launch MSRP of 349 USD. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power consumption ratings for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W, while the Intel Arc Pro B50 has a TDP of 70 W. Both suggest a 250 W power supply and require no external power connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7400 | Intel Arc Pro B50 |

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

| Chip | Navi 33 | BMG-G21 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe2-HPG |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 2600 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz 10.8 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 41.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 332.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 10.65 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 21.30 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Length | 168 mm 6.6 inches | 167 mm 6.6 inches |

| Height | 69 mm 2.7 inches | 69 mm 2.7 inches |

| Width | 20 mm 0.8 inches | 40 mm 1.6 inches |

| Release Date | 2025-08-02 | 2025-09-04 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 17 |