AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and Intel Arc A380E occupy very different positions in the database, and the recorded data reflects that separation clearly. The Radeon PRO W7600 posts an average benchmark score of 87108 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs tracked in the database. The Arc A380E, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores in the current data, and its percentile rank sits at 50, which is the median position. This is not a close contest in raw compute output.

The Radeon PRO W7600 wins on every measurable performance axis where data exists. Its FP32 throughput is listed at 19.99 TFLOPS, while the Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That is a difference of roughly 4.9 times in single-precision floating-point work. The pixel rate tells a similar story: 156.2 GPixel/s for the AMD card versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part. Texture rate favors AMD as well, at 312.3 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s on the W7600 versus 186.0 GB/s on the A380E, and the AMD card carries 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the Intel card has 6 GB on a 96-bit bus.

In terms of shading resources, the W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Ray tracing cores also differ: 32 on the AMD card versus 8 on the Intel card. Clock behavior is interesting because the Intel part runs a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost, while the AMD card spans 1720 MHz base to 2440 MHz boost. The AMD card has a higher peak clock, but the Intel card maintains a constant rate, which may suit workloads that prefer predictable timing.

The use-case split is straightforward. The Radeon PRO W7600 is positioned for compute-heavy professional tasks where raw throughput, memory bandwidth, and shading capacity are the primary drivers. Its recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 81528 and Vulkan score of 92688 indicate strong general compute and graphics API performance. The Arc A380E, with no recorded benchmarks, cannot be assigned any verified performance wins from the database. Its lower power envelope of 75 W against the W7600's 130 W suggests it is designed for environments where thermal and power constraints take precedence over peak output. The Intel card also draws no auxiliary power connectors, whereas the AMD card requires a single 6-pin connector. Those physical characteristics point to different deployment scenarios: the W7600 for workstation towers with adequate power delivery, the A380E for compact or embedded systems where slot power is the only option.

The data does not support any performance advantage for the Arc A380E. Its wins are confined to non-performance attributes: lower power draw, no external power connector, and a slightly shorter board at 254 mm versus 241 mm for the AMD card. Note that the AMD card is actually shorter in length despite the higher power profile. The Intel card is wider at 20 mm versus no width listed for AMD, but both are single-slot designs. The A380E also has a 2000 MHz fixed clock, which may simplify thermal management in constrained chassis, but that is a design characteristic, not a benchmark result.

The Verdict

The verdict from the database is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the choice for any workload that demands compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or graphics rendering capacity. Its 93rd percentile ranking places it among the top tier of all GPUs tracked, and its nearest rivals confirm that standing. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 sits 0.4% above it in average score, the NVIDIA CMP 40HX sits 1.7% below, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile sits 4.4% above, and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 sits 5.0% above. Those deltas are small, meaning the W7600 competes directly with high-end workstation and professional cards from NVIDIA.

The Intel Arc A380E, with no benchmark scores and a median percentile rank, cannot be recommended for any performance-critical role based on the recorded data. Its 50th percentile placement indicates it sits at the middle of the distribution, but without actual scores, the database cannot quantify its compute capability. What is known is its fixed 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 186.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 6 GB memory capacity. Those figures place it in a lower tier than the W7600 by a wide margin.

Who should pick which? A user or integrator requiring verified compute performance, high memory bandwidth, and substantial shading resources should select the Radeon PRO W7600. Its launch MSRP is 599 USD, and it is an active product with a release date of 2023-08-02. The Intel Arc A380E is marked as end-of-life in the database, with a release date of 2024-03-31 and a successor named Battlemage. That status alone makes it a less attractive choice for new deployments. The Arc A380E may fit in systems where power draw is limited to 75 W, where no auxiliary power connector is available, or where the fixed 2000 MHz clock is desirable. But those are niche constraints, not performance advantages.

The database also shows that the W7600 has a predecessor in the Radeon Pro Vega, while the A380E's predecessor is Xe Graphics. The Intel part is in a different generation (Alchemist, Arc 3) and uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture. The AMD part uses the Navi 33 chip on RDNA 3.0. Both are fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, but the AMD chip has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, while the Intel chip has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. Transistor density is 65.2M per mm² for AMD and 45.9M per mm² for Intel, indicating a denser design on the AMD side.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database is empty. There are no direct comparison runs recorded between the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and the Intel Arc A380E. That absence is itself informative: the two cards are so far apart in performance class that no direct comparison has been logged. However, the individual benchmark scores for the W7600 allow for meaningful interpretation against its nearest rivals, which are all NVIDIA professional cards.

The Radeon PRO W7600 records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 81528 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 92688. Its average benchmark score is 87108. The nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, has an average score of 87445, which is 0.4% higher. That is within noise for most workloads. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 85637, which is 1.7% lower than the W7600. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 91134, which is 4.4% higher. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 91671, which is 5.0% higher. These deltas place the W7600 in a tight cluster with the GP100 and CMP 40HX, while the RTX A4500 variants hold a modest lead.

The Vulkan score of 92688 is notably higher than the OpenCL score of 81528 for the W7600. That gap of 11160 points suggests the AMD card responds well to the Vulkan API, which may matter for specific rendering engines or compute frameworks that use Vulkan compute. The OpenCL score still places it in the top percentile range, but the Vulkan advantage is a measurable detail in the data.

For the Arc A380E, there are no scores to compare. The database lists zero benchmarks and an average score of zero. The percentile of 50 is the only ranking data available. This means any head-to-head analysis must rely on the architectural and specification differences rather than measured results. The FP32 throughput difference of 19.99 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS is the largest single compute gap. The pixel rate gap of 156.2 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s is a factor of 2.4. The texture rate gap of 312.3 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s is a factor of 2.4 as well. Memory bandwidth is 1.5 times higher on the AMD card.

The transistor count difference is also substantial: 13,300 million on the AMD Navi 33 versus 7,200 million on the Intel DG2-128. That is nearly double the transistor budget, which explains the larger die size of 204 mm² versus 157 mm². The AMD card uses its additional transistors for more shading units, more ROPs, more TMUs, and more ray tracing cores. The Intel card is a smaller, simpler design aimed at lower power.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87108. The Intel Arc A380E has an average benchmark score of 0, as no benchmarks are recorded in the database.

Q: How do the FP32 compute figures compare?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. The AMD card is approximately 4.9 times higher.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth and capacity?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has a TDP of 130 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector. The Intel Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Are there any recorded head-to-head benchmark results between these two cards?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty. There are no direct comparison scores logged between the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and the Intel Arc A380E.

Q: How does the AMD card rank against its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon PRO W7600 sits 0.4% below the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, 1.7% above the NVIDIA CMP 40HX, 4.4% below the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, and 5.0% below the NVIDIA RTX A4500 in average benchmark score.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is wide, and the database records the specifics. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. Its generation is listed as Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series). The Intel Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, with the generation listed as Alchemist (Arc 3). Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process, but the transistor counts differ significantly.

The AMD chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a density of 45.9M per mm². The AMD design is both larger and denser, which accounts for its higher resource counts. The W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. Every resource category is doubled or quadrupled on the AMD side.

Clock behavior differs as well. The AMD card runs at a base clock of 1720 MHz and a boost clock of 2440 MHz. The Intel card runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD memory operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the Intel memory operates at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective. The memory bus widths are 128-bit for AMD and 96-bit for Intel, which combined with the clock differences yields the bandwidth figures of 288.0 GB/s and 186.0 GB/s respectively.

Both cards support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort on both, but the AMD card uses DisplayPort 2.1 while the Intel card uses DisplayPort 2.0. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Physical dimensions show the AMD card at 241 mm length and 115 mm height, while the Intel card is 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width. Both are single-slot designs. The AMD card requires a 6-pin power connector and suggests a 300 W power supply, while the Intel card has no power connector and suggests a 250 W power supply.

The production status differs completely. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is listed as Active, released on 2023-08-02, with a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega and no successor. The Intel Arc A380E is listed as End-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor named Battlemage. The API support is identical, but the underlying hardware is not comparable in scale. The AMD card is a current professional workstation part with a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The Intel card is a discontinued entry-level part with no launch MSRP recorded.

The architecture differences explain the performance gap. RDNA 3.0 on the Navi 33 chip provides substantially more compute resources, higher clocks, wider memory interface, and more ray tracing hardware. Xe-HPG on the DG2-128 chip is a smaller design focused on efficiency, with a fixed clock and lower power draw. The database shows no recorded benchmarks for the Intel part, so its real-world behavior cannot be verified, but the specification sheet alone places it in a lower performance tier. For any workload that depends on FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, or shading capacity, the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the only choice supported by the data.