AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 shows an average benchmark score of 164,894 across its two measured tests. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, with an average of 0 and a percentile rank of 50, which places it at the median of all GPUs. The AMD card sits at the 97th percentile, a 47-point gap that reflects the substantial difference in measured compute performance.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 scores 154,366. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 175,422. These two results bracket the card's average, with the Vulkan result running 13.6% higher than the OpenCL score. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has no corresponding entries, so direct head-to-head numbers cannot be calculated from the database.

The nearest rivals for the AMD card provide context for its positioning. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 averages 165,217, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD card's average. The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation averages 166,094, a 0.7% advantage. The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X averages 168,574, putting it 2.2% ahead. The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB averages 162,504, which the AMD card beats by 1.5%. These deltas show the W7800 clustered tightly among professional workstation GPUs, with differences under 2.5% across all four rivals.

The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has no nearest rivals listed, no average score, and no percentile comparison beyond the 50th percentile baseline. The database records zero wins for either card in head-to-head comparisons, as no paired benchmark results exist. The data indicates the AMD card has a measurable performance profile, while the Intel card's performance remains uncharacterized in the current record set.

Architecture Differences

The two cards diverge fundamentally at the silicon level. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito, from the Radeon Pro Navi generation. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual uses the BMG-G21 chip based on Xe2-HPG architecture, from the Battlemage Pro Series generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the transistor counts and die sizes differ sharply.

The AMD chip packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip contains 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, for a density of 72.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD die is nearly twice the physical size and holds roughly three times the transistor count. The density gap, 109.1 versus 72.1 million per mm², indicates the AMD design packs logic more tightly.

Memory configurations also differ. The AMD card carries 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, producing 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel card carries 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, producing 456.0 GB/s. The AMD card offers 33.3% more memory capacity and 26.3% more bandwidth. Memory clocks show the Intel card running at 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective transfer, while the AMD card runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, a modest clock advantage for Intel that does not compensate for the narrower bus.

Compute resources show a wide gulf. The AMD card has 4,480 shading units, 280 texture mapping units, 128 render output units, and 70 ray tracing cores. The Intel card has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 20 ray tracing cores. The AMD card provides 75% more shading units, 75% more TMUs, 60% more ROPs, and 250% more ray tracing cores. Pixel rate registers at 323.2 GPixel/s for AMD versus 192.0 GPixel/s for Intel, a 68.3% advantage. Texture rate shows 707.0 GTexel/s for AMD versus 384.0 GTexel/s for Intel, an 84.1% advantage.

Peak compute figures magnify the gap. The AMD card delivers 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 and 90.50 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The Intel card delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 with the same 2:1 ratio. The AMD card is 3.7 times faster in FP32 and FP16 compute. Clock speeds tell a different story: the Intel base clock of 2000 MHz exceeds the AMD base of 1895 MHz, and the Intel boost of 2400 MHz trails the AMD boost of 2525 MHz. The AMD boost runs 5.2% higher, but the Intel base runs 5.5% higher.

Physical specifications differ in length and power delivery. The AMD card measures 280 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, using dual-slot width with dual 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 600 W power supply. The Intel card measures 300 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, also dual-slot, with a single 16-pin connector and a suggested 800 W power supply. The Intel card consumes a rated 400 W TDP versus 260 W for the AMD card, a 53.8% higher power draw despite delivering far lower compute throughput. The bus interface also differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x16, Intel uses PCIe 5.0 x8, which provides the same total bandwidth in theory but through a different configuration.

Display outputs differ as well. The AMD card provides three DisplayPort 2.1 ports and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1 port. The Intel card provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 ports. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins across every measured performance category in the database. Its compute throughput, memory bandwidth, memory capacity, pixel rate, and texture rate all exceed the Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual by wide margins. The 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 figure positions it for heavy compute workloads, while the 576.0 GB/s bandwidth and 32 GB capacity suit large datasets. The 97th percentile ranking supports this interpretation: the card sits near the top of the GPU distribution.

The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has no benchmark scores to claim wins in any measured test. Its advantages appear only in specific configuration details. The base clock of 2000 MHz exceeds the AMD base of 1895 MHz, which could indicate efficiency at idle or low-load states, though no measured data confirms this. The memory clock of 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective transfer runs ahead of AMD's 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps. The PCIe 5.0 x8 interface offers newer bus generation support. The 24 GB memory capacity, while smaller than AMD's 32 GB, still provides substantial headroom for many workloads.

The power profile favors AMD. The 260 W TDP versus 400 W TDP means the AMD card draws 35% less power while delivering 3.7 times the FP32 compute. The Intel card's higher power draw with lower compute suggests the Xe2-HPG architecture is less efficient per watt in this configuration, though efficiency metrics are not directly recorded.

The AMD card's release date of April 2023 preceded the Intel card's September 2025 release by roughly two and a half years, yet the older architecture maintains a commanding lead in every recorded performance metric.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 delivers measured performance at the 97th percentile with an average score of 164,894, placing it alongside the NVIDIA RTX A5500, RTX 4500 Ada Generation, and Radeon Pro W6900X, all within 2.2% of each other. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has no measured scores, a 50th percentile baseline, and no rival comparisons, leaving its performance unquantified in the database.

For compute-intensive tasks requiring FP32 throughput, the AMD card's 45.25 TFLOPS exceeds the Intel card's 12.29 TFLOPS by a factor of 3.7. For memory-bound workloads, the 576.0 GB/s bandwidth and 32 GB capacity give the AMD card a 26.3% bandwidth advantage and 33.3% capacity advantage over Intel's 456.0 GB/s and 24 GB. For ray tracing, the AMD card's 70 RT cores versus 20 gives it a 250% advantage in hardware count.

The Intel card's 400 W TDP with 12.29 TFLOPS produces a compute-per-watt ratio of roughly 0.031 TFLOPS per watt, while the AMD card's 260 W TDP with 45.25 TFLOPS produces roughly 0.174 TFLOPS per watt, a 5.6 times higher efficiency based on recorded figures. The Intel card's suggested 800 W power supply versus AMD's 600 W also indicates higher system-level requirements.

The release timeline favors Intel in terms of newer architecture, but the recorded data shows no performance benefit from that recency. The Intel card has no predecessor recorded, while the AMD card succeeds the Radeon Pro Vega line. The AMD card remains active in production status, as does the Intel card.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has an average benchmark score of 164,894 across Geekbench OpenCL (154,366) and Geekbench Vulkan (175,422). The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has an average benchmark score of 0, with no recorded individual test scores.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD card has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 456.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card provides 33.3% more capacity and 26.3% more bandwidth.

Q: What are the peak FP32 compute figures?

A: The AMD card delivers 45.25 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel card delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD card is 3.7 times faster in FP32 compute.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The AMD card has a 260 W TDP with a suggested 600 W power supply and dual 8-pin connectors. The Intel card has a 400 W TDP with a suggested 800 W power supply and a single 16-pin connector.

Q: Which card has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD card has 70 ray tracing cores, while the Intel card has 20, a 250% advantage for AMD.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The AMD card ranks at the 97th percentile among all GPUs. The Intel card ranks at the 50th percentile, the median baseline.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 | Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual |

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

| Chip | Navi 31 | BMG-G21 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe2-HPG |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) | Battlemage (Pro Series) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 109.1M / mm² | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1895 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2525 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 2375 MHz, 19 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 456.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4480 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 280 | 160 |

| ROPs | 128 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 70 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 323.2 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 707.0 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 45.25 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 400 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 800 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Dimensions | 280 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm | 300 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm |

| Release Date | April 2023 | September 2025 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | 1,199 USD |