AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs Intel Arc A310 Comparison

The benchmark data presents a striking generational divide: the Intel Arc A310 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 in every head-to-head test, yet their average scores are nearly identical. This paradox stems from the Arc A310’s inconsistent performance across different benchmark suites, while the older AMD card delivers a more uniform result. The data shows two very different philosophies: one GPU built for a specific era of professional workloads, the other for a broader, more volatile computing landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench results are not close. In the OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A310 scores 30,607 against the Radeon Pro WX 3100’s 7,333, a delta of -76% from the AMD card’s perspective. This means the Arc A310 is roughly four times faster in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan results tell a similar story: Intel scores 28,964 versus AMD’s 7,827, a -73% delta. These are overwhelming victories, suggesting the Arc A310’s architecture handles modern compute APIs with far greater efficiency than the five-year-old GCN design.

However, the Arc A310’s story becomes more complicated when looking at its Passmark results, which the Radeon Pro WX 3100 lacks. The Intel card scores 5,433 in Passmark G3D, but its DirectX 10, 11, and 12 scores are remarkably low: 31, 33, and 29 respectively. The DirectX 9 result is 69. These numbers are in a completely different league from the Geekbench scores, indicating severe performance inconsistency. The Radeon Pro WX 3100, by contrast, has no such erratic results—its two benchmarks are 7,333 and 7,827, which are close enough to suggest stable performance.

The average benchmark scores reflect this divergence. The AMD card averages 7,580, placing it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs. The Arc A310 averages 7,550, which is the 40th percentile. The delta between them is a mere -0.4% from the AMD card’s perspective. This is the core tension: the Arc A310 wins the head-to-head tests decisively but ties in the aggregate because its Passmark scores drag it down. The data implies that the Arc A310’s performance is highly workload-dependent, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 offers consistency at a lower peak.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average score of 7,580, which is 0.4% higher than the Intel Arc A310’s 7,550. The Intel card sits at the 40th percentile, while AMD is at the 41st.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The Intel Arc A310 scores 28,964 in Vulkan, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7,827. This represents a -73% delta, meaning Intel is approximately 3.7 times faster in this test.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A310 perform consistently across all benchmark types?

A: No. The Arc A310 scores 30,607 in Geekbench OpenCL but only 33 in Passmark DirectX 11 and 29 in DirectX 12. Its Passmark G3D score is 5,433, which is far lower than its Geekbench results suggest it should be.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 96.00 GB/s. Despite this 29% advantage for Intel, the AMD card still manages a higher average benchmark score.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has a pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s, compared to 19.50 GPixel/s for the Radeon Pro WX 3100. Intel also leads in texture rate with 56.00 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, according to production status, both the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 and the Intel Arc A310 are listed as end-of-life. The AMD card launched in 2017, while Intel’s came five years later in 2022.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins in aggregate stability. Its two benchmark scores — 7,333 OpenCL and 7,827 Vulkan — are within 6.7% of each other. This consistency makes it a predictable choice for applications that rely on either API. Furthermore, it edges out the Arc A310 in average score, 7,580 to 7,550, and holds the higher percentile rank at 41 versus 40. For workloads that mirror Geekbench’s mixed compute and graphics tasks, this card offers a known quantity.

The Intel Arc A310 wins decisively in raw compute benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 30,607 is 4.2 times higher than AMD’s, and its Vulkan score of 28,964 is 3.7 times higher. If a workload is heavily parallelized and leverages modern APIs, the Intel card is the clear performer. The data also shows Intel leading in theoretical throughput metrics: 2.688 TFLOPS of FP32 versus AMD’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS, and 5.376 TFLOPS of FP16 versus AMD’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The Arc A310 also has ray tracing cores, which the Radeon Pro WX 3100 lacks entirely, making it the only choice for ray-traced workloads among these two.

However, the Arc A310’s Passmark scores are a warning. A DirectX 12 score of 29 suggests it may underperform in older or less optimized game engines and certain legacy professional applications. The Radeon Pro WX 3100, with its GCN 4.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_0) support, may handle older APIs more gracefully. The data suggests the AMD card is the safer pick for legacy software, while Intel’s is the pick for modern compute-heavy tasks.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, while the Arc A310 uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6. This is counterintuitive: Intel has half the bus width but achieves 124.0 GB/s bandwidth versus AMD’s 96.00 GB/s due to the faster GDDR6 memory clocked at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus AMD’s 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The AMD card runs at a 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost, while Intel runs at a constant 1750 MHz for both base and boost. The Intel card has 768 shading units versus AMD’s 512, but both have 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Intel’s pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s versus AMD’s 19.50 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The Arc A310 has a 30 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 has a 65 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Neither card requires external power connectors. The bus interface also differs: Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs vary, with AMD offering 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while Intel provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4M / mm². The Intel Arc A310 uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for a density of 45.9M / mm². Intel’s node advantage is clear: more than twice the transistor density.

The AMD card belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation, while Intel’s is from Alchemist (Arc 3). AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Intel supports Vulkan 1.4 versus AMD’s 1.3. The Intel card has 6 ray tracing cores; the AMD card has none. FP16 performance also differs: AMD offers 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while Intel offers 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), indicating a different compute strategy. Intel’s predecessor is Xe Graphics and successor is Battlemage, while AMD’s predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and successor is Radeon Pro Vega.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in Geekbench-style workloads, the Intel Arc A310 is the overwhelming choice, delivering 30,607 OpenCL and 28,964 Vulkan scores that leave the Radeon Pro WX 3100 far behind. Its ray tracing cores, higher clock speed, and greater FP32 throughput make it the modern option.

However, the Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins on consistency and aggregate score. Its 7,580 average beats Intel’s 7,550, and it holds a higher percentile rank. The Arc A310’s Passmark results — with G3D at 5,433 and DirectX 12 at 29 — suggest that its performance collapses in certain API conditions. If a workload relies on DirectX 11 or 12, the Intel card may deliver far less than its Geekbench scores imply. The AMD card, with no such wild swings in its data, offers predictable performance across its supported APIs.

The physical metrics reinforce the trade-off. Intel offers 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, 28.00 GPixel/s, and a 30 W TDP. AMD offers 96.00 GB/s, 19.50 GPixel/s, and a 65 W TDP. The Intel card is more efficient in theory, but the benchmark data shows that efficiency does not translate to consistent real-world wins. Ultimately, the Arc A310 is for users who know their software leverages Vulkan and OpenCL heavily. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 is for those who need a stable baseline across a broader range of legacy and modern applications. The data does not crown a single winner; it describes two different tools for different jobs.