AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs Intel Arc A580 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs Intel Arc A580: the data shows a decisive generational split, with the Intel Arc A580 winning both head-to-head benchmark tests by substantial margins, despite the AMD card holding a higher overall benchmark percentile. The Arc A580 leads by 27.3% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 31.1% in Geekbench Vulkan, yet the WX 9100’s average benchmark score of 64,212 places it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the A580’s 87th percentile with an average of 57,756. This paradox is explained by the different test suites used; the WX 9100 relies on older compute workloads while the A580 excels in modern API efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Arc A580 dominates the available head-to-head comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A580 scores 91,657 against the WX 9100’s 66,605, a delta of -27.3% from the AMD card’s perspective. This is not a marginal victory; it represents a massive compute advantage for Intel in a cross-vendor API that favors raw throughput. The Vulkan test tells an even starker story: the A580 posts 79,381 versus the WX 9100’s 54,711, a 31.1% deficit for AMD. Vulkan is a low-overhead API, and the A580’s newer architecture clearly extracts more practical performance from its hardware.

These results flip the narrative suggested by the aggregate scores. The WX 9100’s average benchmark score of 64,212 is boosted by its Geekbench Metal result of 71,319, a test the A580 does not have a comparable result for. When both cards run the same OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the A580 wins outright. The margins are large enough that no amount of driver tuning or workload selection could realistically close the gap; the Intel card is simply faster in these shared tests. For users prioritizing compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the A580 is the clear choice based on this data alone.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast, explaining the benchmark disparity. The WX 9100 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, yielding a density of 25.3M transistors per mm². The A580, by contrast, is built on TSMC’s 6 nm node, fitting 21,700 million transistors into a smaller 406 mm² die, achieving a density of 53.4M per mm². This more than double density is the foundation for the A580’s efficiency and performance.

The memory subsystems diverge completely. The WX 9100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The A580 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but achieves higher bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s. Clock speeds also favor Intel: the A580 runs at a 1700 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, while the WX 9100 operates at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. In terms of raw compute, both cards list identical FP32 throughput at 12.29 TFLOPS and FP16 at 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1), but the A580 achieves this with fewer shading units (3072 vs 4096) and TMUs (192 vs 256), relying on higher clocks.

Feature support is a generation apart. The A580 includes 24 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the WX 9100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) with no ray tracing hardware. The A580 also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the WX 9100’s Vulkan 1.3. The A580 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the WX 9100 is stuck on PCIe 3.0 x16. Power draw favors Intel at 175 W TDP versus 230 W for AMD, and the A580 requires a 450 W PSU versus 550 W for the WX 9100. The WX 9100 outputs 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the A580 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has an average benchmark score of 64,212, while the Intel Arc A580 scores 57,756. The WX 9100 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 89% versus 87% for the A580.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A580 win any head-to-head tests?

A: Yes, the A580 wins both shared tests. It scores 91,657 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 66,605 for the WX 9100, and 79,381 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 54,711, representing deltas of -27.3% and -31.1% respectively from AMD’s perspective.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The WX 9100 has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth. The A580 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has ray tracing support?

A: Only the Intel Arc A580 includes ray tracing cores, with 24 RT cores present. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has no RT cores listed.

Q: How do the manufacturing processes compare?

A: The WX 9100 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the A580 uses a 6 nm process from TSMC. The A580 achieves a transistor density of 53.4M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm² for the WX 9100.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The WX 9100 has a 230 W TDP and requires a 550 W PSU, while the A580 has a 175 W TDP and requires a 450 W PSU. The WX 9100 uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors, while the A580 uses 2x 8-pin.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Arc A580 as the superior performer in shared workloads. It wins both head-to-head benchmark tests by margins of 27.3% and 31.1%, offers ray tracing, newer API support, and does so at a lower TDP of 175 W versus 230 W. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 retains advantages in memory capacity (16 GB vs 8 GB), a wider memory bus (2048-bit vs 256-bit), and a higher overall percentile ranking (89% vs 87%). However, the percentile ranking is skewed by the Metal benchmark, which the A580 does not have a result for—a test that favors AMD’s hardware.

For any user running OpenCL or Vulkan applications, the A580 is the data-backed winner. The 27.3% OpenCL lead and 31.1% Vulkan lead are too substantial to ignore, and the A580’s modern features like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 ensure future compatibility. The WX 9100’s 16 GB of HBM2 may appeal to workloads requiring large memory footprints, but its performance deficit in shared tests suggests it is not competitive for general compute. The A580 also has a higher boost clock (2000 MHz vs 1500 MHz) and a more efficient process node, making it the better engineering choice.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every major specification. The WX 9100 uses a 14 nm process; the A580 uses 6 nm. Transistor counts are 12,500 million for AMD versus 21,700 million for Intel. Die size is 495 mm² for the WX 9100 and 406 mm² for the A580. Memory capacity is 16 GB HBM2 versus 8 GB GDDR6. Bus width is 2048-bit versus 256-bit. Bandwidth is 483.8 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Base clocks are 1200 MHz versus 1700 MHz; boost clocks are 1500 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Shading units are 4096 versus 3072. TMUs are 256 versus 192. ROPs are 64 versus 96. The A580 has 24 RT cores; the WX 9100 has none. Pixel rate is 96.00 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate is identical at 384.0 GTexel/s. TDP is 230 W versus 175 W. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus 2x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 550 W versus 450 W. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan support is 1.3 versus 1.4. Production status is end-of-life versus active. Release dates are 2017-07-09 versus 2023-10-09.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 wins in scenarios that prioritize memory capacity and legacy compute. Its 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus is ideal for datasets that exceed 8 GB, and its higher average benchmark score (64,212) and percentile (89%) suggest strong performance in Metal-based workloads. Its six mini-DisplayPort outputs make it suitable for multi-display professional setups. The card’s 4096 shading units and 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 performance remain relevant for compute tasks that do not leverage modern APIs.

The Intel Arc A580 wins in every shared benchmark test and in any workload leveraging ray tracing or DirectX 12 Ultimate features. Its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, despite a smaller 8 GB frame buffer, outpaces the WX 9100’s 483.8 GB/s. The A580’s 24 RT cores and Vulkan 1.4 support make it the choice for modern gaming or rendering workloads. Its lower TDP (175 W) and 450 W PSU requirement reduce system power demands. The A580’s 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate is double the WX 9100’s 96.00 GPixel/s, indicating faster rasterization. For users running OpenCL or Vulkan, the A580 is the only rational selection based on the 27.3% and 31.1% performance leads. The A580 also benefits from an active production status, ensuring ongoing driver support, while the WX 9100 is end-of-life.