AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile occupy opposite ends of the graphics spectrum, one a discrete workstation card and the other an integrated processor solution. The database shows a stark contrast in raw compute capability, with the W7400 delivering 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 performance against 1.856 TFLOPS for the Iris Xe, a 4.25x advantage. Memory bandwidth tells a similar story: 172.8 GB/s dedicated GDDR6 versus a system-dependent shared memory pool. These are not direct competitors in the traditional sense, but comparing them reveals where each fits in a system builder's plans.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains no direct head-to-head results, so the comparison relies entirely on the specification-derived performance metrics in the database. The most decisive gap appears in pixel throughput, where the W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s versus 29.00 GPixel/s for the Iris Xe. This 2.43x difference means the AMD card can push significantly more filled frames to display outputs, a critical factor for multi-monitor workstation setups.

Texture rate shows an even wider margin. The Radeon PRO W7400 processes 123.2 GTexel/s while the Intel solution manages 58.00 GTexel/s, a 2.12x advantage. This translates directly to shader-heavy workloads, where the W7400's 1792 shading units dwarf the Iris Xe's 640. The AMD card also carries 112 texture mapping units against 40, and 64 ROPs versus 20, confirming a hardware design built for sustained rasterization work.

FP16 compute flips the ratio slightly due to architecture differences. The W7400 posts 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Iris Xe reaches 3.712 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio. Even here, the AMD card leads by 2.12x, but the Intel part shows relatively stronger half-precision efficiency than its FP32 numbers suggest. For AI inference or compute tasks that leverage FP16, the gap narrows but does not close.

Ray tracing hardware exists only on the AMD side. The W7400 integrates 28 dedicated RT cores, while the Iris Xe lists none. Any workload using DirectX 12 Ultimate features, which the AMD card supports at the 12_2 feature level, will simply not run with hardware acceleration on the Intel IGP. The Iris Xe tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1), a meaningful feature-level gap for modern game engines or DXR-based rendering tools.

Clock speeds reverse the expected order. The Iris Xe boosts to 1450 MHz against 1100 MHz for the W7400, and its base clock of 300 MHz is only 30 MHz lower than the AMD card's 330 MHz. The Intel part compensates for fewer execution resources with higher frequency, but the arithmetic does not close the throughput gap. The W7400's larger shader array and memory subsystem simply outmuscle the Intel IGP regardless of clock advantage.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the W7400 includes 28 dedicated ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has no ray tracing cores and only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What memory type does each GPU use?

A: The W7400 uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Xe uses system shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 1.856 TFLOPS for the Iris Xe. This represents a 4.25x advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Are both GPUs currently in production?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile have an active production status according to the database.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W, while the Iris Xe is rated at 15 W. The Intel part is an integrated GPU with no separate power connectors, while the AMD card draws from the PCIe slot alone.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The W7400 uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Iris Xe uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The AMD chip also integrates 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD builds the W7400 on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, using the Navi 33 chip. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. Intel's Iris Xe uses Generation 12.2 architecture on the Raptor Lake chip, part of the HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake) family. The process nodes diverge significantly: TSMC 6 nm for AMD versus Intel 10 nm for the Iris Xe. This gives the W7400 a transistor density of 65.2M per mm² across 13,300 million transistors, while the Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size.

Memory architecture separates the two completely. The W7400 features dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and fixed 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Xe uses system shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the host platform. This means the AMD card delivers predictable memory performance regardless of system configuration, while the Intel IGP's memory speed varies with the laptop's RAM setup.

The W7400 includes 28 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Iris Xe. API support differs as well: the AMD card reaches DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both offer the same OpenGL and Vulkan versions, but the DirectX feature level gap matters for games and applications built around newer DX12 features.

The Radeon PRO W7400 supports four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it suitable for multi-display professional workstations. The Iris Xe's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning connectivity varies by laptop implementation. The AMD card also has a specific successor relationship: it follows the Radeon Pro Vega. The Intel part's successor is Arc Graphics-M, indicating Intel is moving past this integrated solution.

Specification Differences

The shading unit count differs by 1152 units, with the W7400 at 1792 and the Iris Xe at 640. Texture mapping units stand at 112 versus 40, and ROPs at 64 versus 20. Pixel rate reaches 70.40 GPixel/s on the AMD card versus 29.00 GPixel/s on the Intel part. Texture rate shows 123.2 GTexel/s against 58.00 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute is 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400 and 1.856 TFLOPS for the Iris Xe. FP16 compute differs in ratio: the W7400 runs 1:1 at 7.885 TFLOPS, while the Iris Xe runs 2:1 at 3.712 TFLOPS. The W7400 boosts to 1100 MHz from a 330 MHz base, while the Iris Xe boosts to 1450 MHz from a 300 MHz base. Memory clocks are 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) on the AMD card versus system shared on the Intel part.

Power envelopes diverge sharply: 55 W TDP for the W7400 versus 15 W for the Iris Xe. The AMD card is a single-slot design measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, requiring no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The Intel part is an IGP with no dimensions, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, since it draws power through the motherboard. Bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7400 versus Ring Bus for the Iris Xe.

Release dates show the W7400 launched on 2025-08-02, while the Iris Xe appeared on 2023-01-03. Both carry a 50th percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database, indicating mid-pack positioning relative to the full catalog. Neither has a launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of use cases. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 4.25x more FP32 compute, 2.43x more pixel throughput, and 2.12x more texture throughput than the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile. It also provides dedicated ray tracing hardware, 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. This makes it the only option for discrete GPU workloads such as CAD, video editing, or any application requiring consistent memory bandwidth.

The Intel Iris Xe holds advantages in power consumption at 15 W versus 55 W, smaller physical footprint as an integrated solution, and higher boost clock at 1450 MHz versus 1100 MHz. It also supports the same OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 API levels as the AMD card. For users constrained by laptop form factors or strict power budgets, the Iris Xe provides baseline graphics capability without add-in card requirements.

The W7400's 55 W TDP and single-slot design still allows compact workstation builds, and its lack of power connectors simplifies installation. The suggested 250 W PSU requirement is modest for a discrete card. However, the Iris Xe requires no additional power at all, making it suitable for ultra-portable systems where the W7400 physically cannot fit.

Both GPUs hold active production status, so neither is a legacy part. The W7400's release date of 2025-08-02 makes it the newer product, while the Iris Xe from 2023-01-03 has been in the field longer. The AMD card's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, while the Intel part's successor is Arc Graphics-M, indicating the Iris Xe sits at the end of its architectural line.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in every raw performance metric recorded: pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, FP16, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and memory bandwidth. It also wins on feature support with ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate. The 8 GB dedicated GDDR6 frame buffer eliminates reliance on system RAM, a decisive factor for texture-heavy applications or large compute datasets. The four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support multi-monitor professional setups directly.

The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile wins on power efficiency at 15 W versus 55 W, making it the only choice for fanless or low-power designs. Its higher boost clock of 1450 MHz shows the architecture compensates for fewer units with faster operation. The system shared memory model means no dedicated VRAM cost, and the Ring Bus interface integrates directly with the CPU. Its portable device dependent display outputs suit laptops where the GPU must adapt to the host display configuration.

For workstation buyers, the W7400's numbers speak clearly: 172.8 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth against a system dependent figure, 28 RT cores against none, and 7.885 TFLOPS against 1.856 TFLOPS. For laptop users who need basic display output and light 3D acceleration, the Iris Xe's 15 W envelope and integrated form factor are compelling. The database shows two products built for different jobs, and the specification sheet makes those jobs obvious.