AMD Radeon PRO W7900D vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D and the Intel Arc Pro B370. Both entries show zero benchmark scores, zero wins for either side, and no nearest rivals with comparative scores. The database therefore provides no direct measurement of performance differences between these two accelerators. What can be analyzed instead is the structural capability profile encoded in their specifications, which differ so sharply that even without benchmark output, the performance envelope is clearly defined.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. That is a ratio of approximately 8.6 to 1 in favor of the AMD part. In FP16, the AMD card again outputs 52.99 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the AMD card still leads by a factor of roughly 4.3. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 827.9 GTexel/s against 96.00 GTexel/s. Pixel throughput shows 414.0 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s. Every computational throughput figure in the database favors the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D by a wide margin.

Memory further amplifies the gap. The AMD card uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384 bit bus, yielding 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no fixed bandwidth number exists for comparison. The AMD card has a dedicated memory subsystem; the Intel part relies on the host platform. In the absence of measured benchmark scores, the specification delta is the only quantitative basis for comparison, and it is decisive.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different manufacturers, nodes, and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Plum Bonito, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The die contains 57,700 million transistors across a 529 mm² area, giving a transistor density of 109.1M per mm².

The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Panther Lake chip built on Xe3-LPG architecture, belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation, and is fabricated by Intel on a 3 nm process. The database records transistor count, die size, and transistor density as unknown for the Intel part. The process node is smaller, but without transistor or die data, density cannot be assessed.

Compute resources differ in scale. The AMD card has 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 192 ROPs, and 96 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. The AMD card has no listed tensor cores, and neither does the Intel part. Clock behavior is also distinct: the AMD card runs at a base clock of 1327 MHz and a boost of 2156 MHz, while the Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base and a 2400 MHz boost. The Intel part has a higher boost clock, but far fewer execution units, which explains the throughput gap.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The AMD card has 48 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory at 18 Gbps effective speed, with a 384 bit bus and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory, system shared type, system shared bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. That means the Intel part has no local video memory of its own and depends entirely on platform memory.

Power and physical design differ as well. The AMD card has a TDP of 295 W, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, suggests a 600 W PSU, occupies a triple-slot width, and measures 280 mm by 110 mm by 51 mm. It connects via PCIe 4.0 x16 and outputs 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The Intel part has a TDP of 25 W, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, an IGP slot width, an IGP bus interface, and portable device dependent display outputs. It has no listed dimensions. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor, while the AMD card is a discrete, triple-slot add-in board.

API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ, with the AMD card listed as 2025-09-24 and the Intel part as 2026-01-26. The AMD card's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega; the Intel part's predecessor is the HD Graphics-WM. Both are listed as Active in production status, and both show a percentile versus all GPUs of 50.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS compared to 6.144 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Pro B370, a lead of roughly 8.6 times.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384 bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no fixed capacity or bandwidth is listed.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD card has a 295 W TDP, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The Intel part has a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU.

Q: Do both support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is fabricated by Intel on a 3 nm process.

Q: Are these discrete or integrated GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is a discrete triple-slot card using PCIe 4.0 x16. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is an IGP with an IGP bus interface and portable device dependent display outputs.

The Verdict

The database shows two products with no overlapping performance measurements, so any verdict must rest on specifications. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is the clear choice for workloads requiring dedicated memory, high throughput, and multi-display output on a discrete card. It has 48 GB of dedicated GDDR6, 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth, 52.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and a 384 bit memory bus. The Intel Arc Pro B370 offers a dramatically smaller footprint, a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, and no dedicated memory. It is an integrated solution for portable devices, not a direct competitor in raw compute.

The AMD card suits tasks that demand sustained local memory bandwidth and high pixel and texture rates. The Intel part suits platforms where power draw and physical space are constrained, and where system shared memory is acceptable. The data shows no scenario where the Intel part outperforms the AMD card in raw throughput, because no such measurement exists in the database and the specification gap is massive. The release dates also place the Intel part later, but later availability does not close the compute gap.

Neither product has a benchmark score or a launch MSRP in the database, so price and measured performance cannot inform the verdict. The verdict is therefore structural: the AMD card is a high-power discrete workstation accelerator, the Intel part is a low-power integrated graphics solution. They are not interchangeable.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every recorded specification field.

• Chip: Navi 31 versus Panther Lake
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus Xe3-LPG
• Generation: Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) versus Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake)
• Process node: 5 nm (TSMC) versus 3 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: 57,700 million versus unknown
• Die size: 529 mm² versus unknown
• Base clock: 1327 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost clock: 2156 MHz versus 2400 MHz
• Memory clock: 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective versus system shared
• Memory size: 48 GB versus system shared
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus system shared
• Memory bus width: 384 bit versus system shared
• Memory bandwidth: 864.0 GB/s versus system dependent
• Shading units: 6144 versus 1280
• TMUs: 384 versus 40
• ROPs: 192 versus 20
• Ray tracing cores: 96 versus 10
• Pixel rate: 414.0 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 827.9 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 52.99 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS
• FP16: 52.99 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 295 W versus 25 W
• Slot width: triple-slot versus IGP
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 600 W versus none
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus IGP
• Display outputs: 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 versus portable device dependent
• Dimensions: 280 mm by 110 mm by 51 mm versus none listed
• Release date: 2025-09-24 versus 2026-01-26
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega versus HD Graphics-WM

Identical fields: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are Active. Both have no tensor cores listed. Both have the same percentile versus all GPUs of 50, though this is not backed by any recorded benchmark score.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D wins in every quantitative compute metric in the database. It has higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, more ray tracing cores, dedicated memory with fixed bandwidth, and a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. It is the only one of the two with a defined memory bandwidth, a defined power connector scheme, a defined PSU suggestion, and a defined physical footprint. Workloads that depend on local memory bandwidth, multi-display output, and sustained high compute throughput align with this card.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins in power efficiency by specification: 25 W TDP against 295 W, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. It also has a higher boost clock at 2400 MHz versus 2156 MHz, though with far fewer execution units. It uses a smaller 3 nm process node. It is an IGP, so it requires no separate card slot and no external power, and its display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning it targets integrated platforms. For systems where power draw is the limiting factor and no discrete graphics is possible, the Intel part is the only viable option in this comparison. The AMD card cannot match that integration level, and the Intel part cannot match the AMD card's raw throughput.

The database shows no benchmark results to shift these positions. The AMD card is the compute leader by every recorded specification. The Intel part is the low-power integrated alternative. Each wins in the context where its defining characteristics matter most.