AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Arc Pro B70 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Arc Pro B70?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc Pro B70 uses the BMG-G31 chip built on Xe2-HPG architecture (Battlemage Pro Series), manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B70 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 608.0 GB/s bandwidth. That gives the Intel card roughly 3.5 times the bandwidth and four times the capacity.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W, uses no power connectors, and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The Intel Arc Pro B70 has a TDP of 230 W, uses a single 8-pin power connector, and requires a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: What is the difference in physical size?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide. The Intel Arc Pro B70 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm long, 110 mm high, and 39 mm wide.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B70 delivers 22.94 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS. The Intel card is roughly 2.9 times higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: What display outputs are available on each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Intel Arc Pro B70 offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and Intel Arc Pro B70 represent two fundamentally different GPU architectures. The AMD card uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, belonging to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The Intel card uses the BMG-G31 chip based on Xe2-HPG, belonging to the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation.

The manufacturing processes differ significantly. The AMD chip is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel chip uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The AMD chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The Intel chip has a larger die at 368 mm², though its transistor count is unknown in the database.

The execution resources show a substantial disparity. The AMD card has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel card has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, 128 raster operation units, and 32 ray tracing cores. The Intel card doubles the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, while adding four more RT cores.

Clock behavior also differs markedly. The AMD card has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Intel card has a base clock of 2280 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The memory clocks are likewise different: the AMD card runs at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), while the Intel card runs at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective).

The bus interfaces are not the same. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel card uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The power delivery architecture also differs: the AMD card requires no external power connectors and has a 55 W TDP, whereas the Intel card needs one 8-pin connector and has a 230 W TDP. The suggested PSU rating follows accordingly: 250 W for the AMD card, 550 W for the Intel card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no benchmark scores for either card, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. However, the specification-level comparisons provide a clear picture of performance differentials across multiple compute metrics.

In FP32 compute, the Intel Arc Pro B70 delivers 22.94 TFLOPS versus the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. The Intel card is approximately 2.9 times ahead in this metric. For FP16 compute, the gap widens considerably. The AMD card achieves 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the Intel card achieves 45.88 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. This puts the Intel card at roughly 5.8 times the FP16 throughput of the AMD card.

The pixel rate tells a similar story. The Intel card reaches 358.4 GPixel/s, while the AMD card reaches 70.40 GPixel/s. The Intel card is about 5.1 times faster in pixel fill rate. The texture rate shows the Intel card at 716.8 GTexel/s versus the AMD card's 123.2 GTexel/s, a factor of approximately 5.8.

Memory bandwidth favors the Intel card as well. The 608.0 GB/s bandwidth of the Intel card is roughly 3.5 times the 172.8 GB/s of the AMD card. The memory bus width of 256 bits on the Intel card doubles the 128-bit bus of the AMD card, and the 19 Gbps effective memory speed on the Intel card is about 1.8 times the 10.8 Gbps on the AMD card.

The Intel card also holds an advantage in memory capacity, offering 32 GB versus 8 GB. This is a fourfold difference that matters for large datasets. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility does not differentiate them.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every hardware specification in the database.

Chip and Architecture: AMD uses Navi 33 with RDNA 3.0; Intel uses BMG-G31 with Xe2-HPG.

Process Node: AMD uses 6 nm; Intel uses 5 nm. Both are TSMC.

Die Size: AMD measures 204 mm²; Intel measures 368 mm².

Transistors: AMD has 13,300 million; Intel's count is unknown.

Transistor Density: AMD has 65.2 million per mm²; Intel has no recorded value.

Clocks: AMD base is 330 MHz, boost is 1100 MHz, memory clock is 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). Intel base is 2280 MHz, boost is 2800 MHz, memory clock is 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective).

Memory: AMD has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. Intel has 32 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 608.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute Units: AMD has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. Intel has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 32 RT cores.

Rates: AMD pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s, texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s, FP32 is 7.885 TFLOPS, FP16 is 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1). Intel pixel rate is 358.4 GPixel/s, texture rate is 716.8 GTexel/s, FP32 is 22.94 TFLOPS, FP16 is 45.88 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power: AMD TDP is 55 W with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. Intel TDP is 230 W with one 8-pin connector and a 550 W suggested PSU.

Physical: AMD is single-slot, 168 mm long, 69 mm high, 20 mm wide. Intel is dual-slot, 267 mm long, 110 mm high, 39 mm wide.

Bus Interface: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8; Intel uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Display Outputs: AMD has 4x DisplayPort 2.1. Intel has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Release Date: AMD released on 2025-08-02; Intel released on 2026-03-25.

Production Status: AMD is Active; Intel has no recorded status.

Launch MSRP: Intel has a launch MSRP of 949 USD. AMD has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy between these two cards. The Intel Arc Pro B70 dominates the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 across every compute and memory metric recorded in the database. The FP32 throughput advantage of 2.9 times, the FP16 advantage of 5.8 times, the pixel rate advantage of 5.1 times, and the texture rate advantage of 5.8 times all point to a substantially higher-performance product in the Intel card.

The memory subsystem reinforces this gap. The Intel card offers four times the capacity and 3.5 times the bandwidth. For workloads that require large working sets, the 32 GB capacity of the Intel card is a decisive factor. The 8 GB capacity of the AMD card limits the size of datasets that can reside in graphics memory.

The power envelope works in the opposite direction. The AMD card draws 55 W with no external power connectors, while the Intel card draws 230 W and requires an 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU rating of 250 W for the AMD card versus 550 W for the Intel card reflects a significant difference in system-level power requirements. The AMD card also occupies a single slot and measures 168 mm in length, while the Intel card is a dual-slot design at 267 mm. These factors affect system compatibility and cooling requirements.

The release dates show the Intel card came later, which may explain its more advanced process node and higher specifications. The Intel card also carries a launch MSRP of 949 USD, while the AMD card has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B70 wins in raw compute performance. The 22.94 TFLOPS FP32 and 45.88 TFLOPS FP16 figures place it well ahead of the AMD card for compute-intensive rendering, simulation, and machine learning workloads. The 32 GB memory capacity and 608.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large-scale data processing and high-resolution texture workloads. The 358.4 GPixel/s pixel rate and 716.8 GTexel/s texture rate indicate strong performance in rasterization-heavy tasks. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides double the lane width and a newer bus standard compared to the PCIe 4.0 x8 on the AMD card.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in power efficiency and physical compatibility. The 55 W TDP with no power connectors makes it suitable for systems without auxiliary power headers. The single-slot design and 168 mm length allow installation in compact chassis where the 267 mm dual-slot Intel card will not fit. The 250 W suggested PSU requirement is less demanding than the 550 W requirement of the Intel card, enabling deployment in lower-spec systems. The 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs provide four simultaneous display connections without needing an HDMI port, which may suit multi-display setups that exclusively use DisplayPort.

Workload-specific outcomes follow from these differences. The AMD card is better positioned for low-power workstation environments, multi-display configurations with DisplayPort-only monitors, and space-constrained builds. The Intel card is better positioned for GPU-accelerated compute, large memory footprints, and high-throughput rendering tasks where its bandwidth and compute advantages translate directly into reduced processing time. The 5.8 times FP16 advantage on the Intel card makes it particularly relevant for workloads that leverage reduced-precision arithmetic.