AMD Radeon PRO W7900D vs Intel Arc Pro B390 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a clear performance tier separation between the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D and the Intel Arc Pro B390, though the absence of head-to-head benchmark entries means the comparison relies entirely on architectural and specification data. The AMD part occupies the workstation discrete GPU segment, while the Intel part is an integrated graphics processor embedded in a mobile or compact platform.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is roughly 6.9 times the Intel Arc Pro B390's 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput. This massive gap positions the AMD card for compute-heavy workloads such as rendering, simulation, and large-model inference, where raw shading throughput translates directly into reduced processing time. The texture rate of 827.9 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s, a 6.9 times difference, reinforces the same conclusion for texture-bound tasks.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 counters with an integrated form factor, an 80 W TDP, and no power connectors, making it suitable for compact systems where the AMD card's 295 W TDP and triple-slot cooler would not fit. The Intel part's FP16 performance of 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) exceeds its FP32 rate, indicating a design that favors half-precision workloads, whereas the AMD card maintains a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio at 52.99 TFLOPS. For applications that exploit FP16 arithmetic, the Intel part still trails by a factor of 3.45, but its relative efficiency in that mode suggests a different optimization priority.

Pixel throughput shows a 6.9 times advantage for AMD at 414.0 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s, which directly impacts fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution compositing or multi-viewport display walls. The AMD card also provides 48 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part relies on system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, a fundamental difference for datasets that exceed the shared memory ceiling or require predictable memory latency.

Architecture Differences

The process node separates the two designs fundamentally. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses TSMC's 5 nm process with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses Intel's 3 nm process, though transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown. The Intel part's smaller process node does not compensate for its far smaller execution resource pool, as the shading unit count of 1536 versus 6144, TMUs of 48 versus 384, and ROPs of 24 versus 192 all indicate a substantially narrower architecture.

The AMD chip is Navi 31 under the RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito, part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The Intel chip is Panther Lake under the Xe3-LPG architecture, belonging to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. These are different design philosophies: RDNA 3.0 is a discrete GPU architecture optimized for maximum throughput with 96 ray tracing cores and a 384-bit memory bus, while Xe3-LPG is a low-power integrated graphics architecture with 12 ray tracing cores and shared system memory.

Clock behavior also diverges. The AMD card runs a base clock of 1327 MHz and boost of 2156 MHz, with memory clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and boost of 2500 MHz, a higher peak clock but with far fewer execution units behind it. The AMD card's memory bandwidth of 864.0 GB/s is a fixed hardware property, while the Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent, meaning its effective throughput varies with the host platform's memory configuration.

The power envelope tells a stark story. The AMD card draws 295 W, uses two 8-pin power connectors, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, and occupies a triple-slot footprint measuring 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 51 mm in width. The Intel part is an IGP with an 80 W TDP, no power connectors, and no listed dimensions, designed to be soldered onto a processor package. The bus interface confirms the positioning: PCIe 4.0 x16 for AMD versus IGP for Intel, meaning the latter communicates over the processor's internal fabric rather than a dedicated expansion slot.

API support is identical on paper, with both listing DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs differ, however: the AMD card provides three DisplayPort 2.1 and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the Intel part's outputs are portable device dependent, reflecting its target integration into laptops or compact devices. The AMD card's production status is active with a release date of September 24, 2025, while the Intel part is also active with a release date of January 26, 2026, making the Intel part the more recent introduction by about four months.

The Verdict

The database indicates that the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is the choice for dedicated workstation graphics where maximum compute throughput, high-capacity dedicated memory, and fixed bandwidth are required. Its 48 GB GDDR6 pool, 864.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 52.99 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it in a category for professional 3D rendering, scientific computation, and large-scale visualization. The 96 ray tracing cores and 6144 shading units provide resources that no integrated solution can approach.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 serves the opposite end of the spectrum: an integrated GPU with an 80 W TDP, no discrete power connectors, and system shared memory. Its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 performance, along with 12 ray tracing cores, make it viable for light to moderate graphics work within a power-constrained platform. The 3 nm process and 2500 MHz boost clock indicate a modern, efficient design, but the execution resource gap is too wide to classify it as a competitor to the AMD card in any absolute performance sense.

There is no benchmark data recorded for either product, so the percentile against all GPUs is 50 for both, and no nearest rivals are listed. The verdict rests on specifications alone. Users who need a discrete, high-bandwidth, high-throughput accelerator should select the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D. Users who require an integrated, low-power graphics solution with no expansion slot requirements should select the Intel Arc Pro B390. The two products do not overlap in their intended deployment scenarios.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D in FP32 compute compared to the Intel Arc Pro B390?

A: The AMD card delivers 52.99 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel part delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32, making the AMD card approximately 6.9 times faster in single-precision floating-point throughput.

Q: What type of memory does each product use?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses 48 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with a 384-bit bus and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent.

Q: Can the Intel Arc Pro B390 be installed in a desktop expansion slot?

A: No. The Intel part is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a bus interface of IGP and no power connectors, dimensions, or slot width listed. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and is a triple-slot discrete card.

Q: Which product has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a higher boost clock of 2500 MHz compared to the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D's boost clock of 2156 MHz. However, the AMD card has 6144 shading units versus 1536 for Intel, so the clock advantage does not translate into higher throughput.

Q: What are the power requirements for each product?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has a TDP of 295 W, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Do both products support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 as supported APIs. The AMD card also provides specific display outputs (three DisplayPort 2.1 and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1), while the Intel part's display outputs are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the database for these two products, and neither product has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals. The comparison therefore relies on the specification-derived rates that are recorded. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D shows a 45.31 TFLOPS advantage in FP32 compute (52.99 versus 7.680), a 707.9 GTexel/s advantage in texture rate (827.9 versus 120.0), and a 354.0 GPixel/s advantage in pixel rate (414.0 versus 60.00). These deltas are consistent across all throughput metrics, each showing the AMD card at roughly 6.9 times the Intel part's rate.

The FP16 comparison shows a different ratio. The AMD card sustains 52.99 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Intel part achieves 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD card remains 3.45 times faster in FP16, but the Intel part's ratio indicates a deliberate design for half-precision acceleration, which narrows the relative gap in that mode compared to FP32.

Memory bandwidth shows the largest absolute difference. The AMD card's dedicated 864.0 GB/s is a fixed figure, while the Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent with no recorded number. The 48 GB memory capacity versus system shared memory also separates the two, with the AMD card providing a predictable, dedicated pool that does not contend with the CPU for memory resources.

The ray tracing core count favors AMD at 96 versus 12 for Intel, an 8 times difference. This suggests a substantial gap in ray-traced workloads, though no benchmark scores confirm the scaling. The shading unit count of 6144 versus 1536 is a 4 times difference, while TMUs (384 versus 48) and ROPs (192 versus 24) both show 8 times differences, indicating that the AMD card's advantage is largest in texture and pixel processing stages.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, a 5 nm TSMC process, 57,700 million transistors, and a 529 mm² die size. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, a 3 nm Intel process, with unknown transistor count and die size. The transistor density is 109.1M per mm² for AMD, while no density is recorded for Intel.

Memory specifications show a complete divergence. The AMD card has 48 GB GDDR6, a 384-bit bus, and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has system shared memory for all four fields: size, type, bus width, and bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ, with AMD at 1327 MHz base and 2156 MHz boost, while Intel runs at 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost. The memory clock is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for AMD and system shared for Intel.

Execution resources show AMD leading: 6144 shading units versus 1536, 384 TMUs versus 48, 192 ROPs versus 24, and 96 ray tracing cores versus 12. Neither product lists tensor cores. The pixel rate is 414.0 GPixel/s for AMD versus 60.00 GPixel/s for Intel, and the texture rate is 827.9 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 52.99 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 52.99 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specifications differ completely. The AMD card has a 295 W TDP, triple-slot width, two 8-pin power connectors, a 600 W suggested PSU, and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. The Intel part has an 80 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and an IGP bus interface. The AMD card measures 280 mm by 110 mm by 51 mm, while the Intel part has no listed dimensions.

Display outputs are three DisplayPort 2.1 and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1 for AMD, and portable device dependent for Intel. The release dates are September 24, 2025 for AMD and January 26, 2026 for Intel. The AMD card's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the Intel part's predecessor is the HD Graphics-WM. Neither product has a listed successor or launch MSRP. Production status is active for both, and the percentile against all GPUs is 50 for both, with no benchmark scores recorded.