AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs, with no wins recorded for either side. This absence of direct measurement data means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural specifications and feature sets listed in the database.

The raw compute figures, however, establish a clear separation. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 delivers 44.44 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 5.6 times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. The texture rate follows the same pattern: Intel reaches 1,388.8 GTexel/s against AMD's 123.2 GTexel/s, a factor of 11.3. The pixel rate is a different story entirely. AMD outputs 70.40 GPixel/s, while the Intel part records 0 MPixel/s, indicating it has no raster output units. The Radeon PRO W7400 has 64 ROPs, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 lists zero ROPs, which explains the pixel rate disparity.

Memory bandwidth amplifies the Intel advantage in data-heavy workloads. The Intel card uses 96 GB of HBM2e memory across an 8192-bit bus, producing 2.46 TB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s. That is a 14.2-fold bandwidth difference in Intel's favor, combined with a 12-fold capacity difference. The AMD part counters with a much lower power draw of 55 W versus 450 W for Intel, but the performance-per-watt comparison cannot be computed from the recorded data since no efficiency scores are present.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with the Navi 33 chip under the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The die measures 204 mm² and contains 13,300 million transistors, yielding a density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter. Intel's Ponte Vecchio chip uses the Generation 12.5 architecture on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die is 1280 mm², nearly 6.3 times larger, and packs 100,000 million transistors, a density of 78.1 million per square millimeter. The transistor count difference is 7.5 times in Intel's favor.

Compute unit counts follow the die size trend. AMD provides 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Intel scales this up to 14,336 shading units, 896 TMUs, zero ROPs, and 112 ray tracing cores. The shading unit count is exactly 8 times higher on Intel, and the TMU count is also 8 times higher. The ROP count is the one area where AMD holds a structural advantage, since Intel's design omits these units entirely.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. AMD uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit interface, clocked at 1350 MHz for 10.8 Gbps effective, producing 172.8 GB/s. Intel uses 96 GB of HBM2e with an 8192-bit interface, clocked at 1200 MHz for 2.4 Gbps effective, reaching 2.46 TB/s. The bus width difference is 64 times, and the memory type difference (GDDR6 versus HBM2e) reflects different target workloads: AMD's card is built for display output, while Intel's has no display outputs at all.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD card has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Intel card runs at 750 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost, with both figures higher despite the larger die. The AMD memory clock is higher at 1350 MHz versus 1200 MHz for Intel, but the effective data rate tells the opposite story due to the bus widths.

Feature support shows another split. AMD supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support is recorded. The AMD card offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while Intel provides no outputs. The bus interface differs as well: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, Intel uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Power delivery reflects the TDP gap: AMD draws 55 W with no external power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while Intel draws 450 W with a suggested PSU of 850 W and uses an OAM Module slot width.

The Verdict

The recorded data directs each product toward a distinct role. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the only one of the two with display outputs, offering four DisplayPort 2.1 connections. It supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate, making it suitable for graphics workloads that require rasterization, ray tracing, and display presentation. Its 64 ROPs and 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate confirm a rendering pipeline, while its 55 W TDP and single-slot design, 168 mm long, allow placement in systems with modest power budgets. The suggested PSU of 250 W reinforces this positioning.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 shows no display capability and no ROPs. Its 96 GB HBM2e memory and 2.46 TB/s bandwidth, combined with 44.44 TFLOPS FP32, point to compute and data-center acceleration rather than graphics output. The 450 W TDP and 850 W suggested PSU require a server-class power infrastructure. The OAM Module form factor, rather than a standard slot, indicates a rack-mounted deployment. The absence of Vulkan support further narrows its software ecosystem.

The choice depends on the workload. The AMD card serves workstation graphics, visualization, and any task requiring a physical display connection. The Intel card serves batch processing, large dataset handling, and compute-heavy operations where display output is irrelevant. The 5.6 times FP32 advantage, 14.2 times bandwidth advantage, and 12 times memory capacity advantage on the Intel side are decisive for compute density. The AMD side wins on portability, power efficiency, and display features. Neither product can substitute for the other in their primary roles.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 delivers 44.44 TFLOPS, which is 5.6 times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400.

Q: Do both cards support display outputs?

A: No. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has no outputs.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: AMD uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses 96 GB of HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 2.46 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Both cards include ray tracing cores. AMD has 28, and Intel has 112.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD card has a TDP of 55 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel card has a TDP of 450 W with a suggested PSU of 850 W.

Q: Does either card support Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 supports Vulkan 1.4. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has no Vulkan support recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in every scenario involving visual output. Its four DisplayPort 2.1 connections allow direct attachment to monitors, which the Intel card cannot do. The 64 ROPs and 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate provide a functional rasterization path. The card's 55 W TDP and single-slot form factor, measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, fit into compact workstations. The lack of external power connectors simplifies installation. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while narrower than Intel's, is sufficient for its bandwidth needs. The support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 expands the software range for graphics applications.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins in compute throughput and memory capacity. Its 44.44 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio give it a 5.6 times advantage over AMD. The 96 GB HBM2e memory with 2.46 TB/s bandwidth handles datasets that the 8 GB AMD card cannot fit. The 112 ray tracing cores quadruple AMD's count. The 14,336 shading units and 896 TMUs provide massive parallel throughput for shader and texture workloads. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface doubles the bus generation and widens the lane count compared to AMD's PCIe 4.0 x8. The 450 W TDP is a cost, but the compute density justifies it in server environments where the OAM Module form factor is standard.

The transistor budget tells the same story. Intel's 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die enable the large compute arrays, while AMD's 13,300 million transistors on 204 mm² allow a lower-power design. The density figures, 65.2 million per square millimeter for AMD and 78.1 million for Intel, show that Intel packs more transistors per area despite the older 10 nm process. The AMD card's 6 nm process at TSMC gives it a manufacturing advantage, but the architectural scale of Ponte Vecchio overcomes that.

For ray tracing workloads, Intel's 112 cores versus AMD's 28 provide a clear advantage in raw count, though no benchmark data confirms the performance scaling. For texture-heavy tasks, Intel's 1,388.8 GTexel/s versus AMD's 123.2 GTexel/s is an 11.3 times advantage. For pixel output, only AMD has the capability. The database records no wins for either side, but the specification sheet assigns each card a clear domain: AMD for graphics workstations with displays, Intel for compute accelerators without them.