AMD Radeon PRO W7900D vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D or the Intel Arc A310E. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and their percentile rankings against all GPUs are identical at the 50th percentile. This absence of measured data means the head-to-head comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences captured in the database rather than on empirical performance results.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D delivers a FP32 compute rating of 52.99 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at roughly 17 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part, a gap that reflects their entirely different market positions. In FP16 workloads, the AMD card sustains 52.99 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel card reaches 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning the Intel architecture doubles its FP16 throughput relative to FP32 while the AMD architecture does not.

Pixel throughput shows a similar divide. The Radeon PRO W7900D achieves 414.0 GPixel/s, compared to 32.00 GPixel/s for the Arc A310E. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 827.9 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s. These figures indicate that the AMD card processes geometry and fills pixels at more than an order of magnitude higher rate, which would translate directly into higher frame rates in rendering workloads where the GPU is the bottleneck.

Memory bandwidth further widens the gap. The Radeon PRO W7900D accesses 48 GB of GDDR6 across a 384 bit bus, yielding 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus, producing 124.0 GB/s. That is a 7x difference in raw memory bandwidth, which matters for large datasets, high resolution textures, and compute workloads that stream data through memory.

Clock behavior differs meaningfully as well. The AMD part runs at a base clock of 1327 MHz and boosts to 2156 MHz, suggesting substantial dynamic range under load. The Intel part sits at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, indicating a fixed operating point with no headroom for higher clocks. The memory clock on the AMD card is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the Intel card uses 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Neither card has recorded wins in the head-to-head benchmark category, with winsA and winsB both at zero. The database thus offers no empirical victory for either side, only the structural advantages visible in the specification sheets.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Plum Bonito. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, specifically the Navi III Series. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist generation within the Arc 3 family.

Manufacturing processes differ by one node generation. AMD fabricates Navi 31 on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while Intel fabricates DG2-128 on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the scale difference: the AMD chip packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a density of 45.9M per mm². The AMD die is more than three times larger and carries eight times the transistor count.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The Radeon PRO W7900D has 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 192 render output units, and 96 ray tracing cores. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The AMD part has 8 times the shading units, 12 times the TMUs, 12 times the ROPs, and 16 times the ray tracing cores. These ratios align with the FP32 and texture rate differences observed earlier.

Memory subsystems are built to different scales. The AMD card uses 48 GB of GDDR6 with a 384 bit interface, while the Intel card uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64 bit interface. The AMD memory bus is six times wider, and the capacity is twelve times larger. Memory bandwidth of 864.0 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s reflects both the wider bus and the higher memory clock.

Power delivery and physical design also separate the two. The Radeon PRO W7900D has a TDP of 295 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and occupies a triple-slot form factor. It measures 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 51 mm in width. The Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W, requires no external power connectors, and fits in a single slot. Its dimensions are 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm. The suggested PSU rating is 600 W for the AMD card and 250 W for the Intel card.

Interface widths differ: the AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Intel card uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs also differ, with the AMD card offering three DisplayPort 2.1 ports plus one mini-DisplayPort 2.1, and the Intel card offering four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 ports.

Production status and lifecycle timing separate them further. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is listed as Active with a release date of 2025-09-24. The Intel Arc A310E is End-of-life with a release date of 2024-03-31, and it has a listed successor, Battlemage. The AMD card's predecessor is given as Radeon Pro Vega, while the Intel card's predecessor is Xe Graphics.

The API support is identical: both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has tensor cores listed in the database.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products aimed at entirely different workloads. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is a high-end workstation accelerator with massive memory capacity, high bandwidth, and compute throughput suitable for large-scale rendering, simulation, and AI inference workloads that fit within its 48 GB frame buffer. The Intel Arc A310E is a low-power embedded or entry-level GPU with modest compute, small memory, and minimal power draw.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS FP32 and 864.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, figures that place it in a different performance class than the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS and 124.0 GB/s. The AMD card also has 96 ray tracing cores versus 6 on the Intel part, which would matter for ray-traced rendering workloads.

For users constrained by power, space, or thermal limits, the Arc A310E offers a 75 W TDP with no external power connectors, a single-slot design, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The Radeon PRO W7900D requires 295 W, two 8-pin connectors, and a 600 W PSU, along with triple-slot clearance.

The production status difference matters for long-term planning. The AMD card is Active, while the Intel card is End-of-life with a successor already named. Organizations choosing the Intel part would be selecting hardware that the database records as no longer in production.

Benchmark data is absent for both cards, so the verdict rests on specifications alone. The recorded numbers show a clear performance hierarchy, with the AMD card ahead in every compute and memory metric, and the Intel card ahead only in power efficiency and physical footprint.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, and the Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has a TDP of 295 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors, while the Intel Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is listed as Active in the database. The Intel Arc A310E is listed as End-of-life.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The Intel Arc A310E has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

Q: What are the release dates for these GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has a release date of 2025-09-24, and the Intel Arc A310E has a release date of 2024-03-31.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D wins on every compute metric recorded. FP32 throughput of 52.99 TFLOPS exceeds the Intel part by more than 17 times. FP16 throughput of 52.99 TFLOPS (1:1) also exceeds the Intel part's 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel rate of 414.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 827.9 GTexel/s dwarf the Intel card's 32.00 GPixel/s and 64.00 GTexel/s respectively.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also favor the AMD card. With 48 GB versus 4 GB, the AMD card can hold twelve times more data locally. The 864.0 GB/s bandwidth is nearly seven times the Intel card's 124.0 GB/s. The 384 bit bus versus 64 bit bus means the AMD card can move data in much larger chunks per clock cycle.

Ray tracing resources favor AMD as well: 96 ray tracing cores versus 6. The AMD card also has a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8), which matters for data transfer between the GPU and host system.

The Intel Arc A310E wins on power and physical footprint. Its 75 W TDP is less than one third of the AMD card's 295 W. It requires no power connectors and fits in a single slot, while the AMD card needs two 8-pin connectors and a triple-slot design. The Intel card is also smaller in every dimension: 168 mm versus 280 mm in length, 69 mm versus 110 mm in height, and 20 mm versus 51 mm in width. The suggested PSU of 250 W versus 600 W indicates lower system power requirements.

The Intel card also has a higher base clock at 2000 MHz versus 1327 MHz on the AMD card, though the AMD boost clock of 2156 MHz surpasses the Intel fixed 2000 MHz. The Intel card's flat clock profile suggests predictable performance without thermal throttling concerns, while the AMD card's boost behavior indicates dynamic scaling.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in every major specification category recorded in the database. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip on RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Plum Bonito codename, while the Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip on Xe-HPG architecture in the Alchemist generation.

The manufacturing process differs: 5 nm for AMD versus 6 nm for Intel, both at TSMC. Transistor counts are 57,700 million for AMD versus 7,200 million for Intel, on die sizes of 529 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density is 109.1M per mm² for AMD versus 45.9M per mm² for Intel.

Clock specifications differ in base and boost behavior. AMD runs at 1327 MHz base and 2156 MHz boost, with memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Intel runs at 2000 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration diverges completely: 48 GB GDDR6 on a 384 bit bus for AMD versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus for Intel. Bandwidth is 864.0 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s.

Core counts differ across all categories: 6144 shading units versus 768, 384 TMUs versus 32, 192 ROPs versus 16, and 96 ray tracing cores versus 6. Pixel rate is 414.0 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 827.9 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput figures are 52.99 TFLOPS FP32 and 52.99 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) for AMD, versus 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) for Intel.

Power and physical specifications show the largest practical differences. AMD has a 295 W TDP, two 8-pin connectors, a 600 W suggested PSU, and a triple-slot form factor. Intel has a 75 W TDP, no connectors, a 250 W suggested PSU, and a single-slot form factor. Dimensions are 280 mm by 110 mm by 51 mm for AMD versus 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm for Intel.

The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel. Display outputs are 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 for AMD, versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 for Intel.

Production status and release dates differ: AMD is Active with a 2025-09-24 release, and Intel is End-of-life with a 2024-03-31 release. The AMD predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, while the Intel predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage. API support is identical at DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP.