AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs Intel Arc A770 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc A770 compare to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Intel Arc A770 holds a clear edge, with an average benchmark score of 68,809 versus 64,212 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100. This places the Intel card at the 90th percentile among all GPUs, while the AMD card sits at the 89th percentile.

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL test, and by how much?

A: The Intel Arc A770 wins decisively, scoring 109,175 against the Radeon Pro WX 9100's 66,605. That is a 63.9% advantage for the Intel part.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The gap widens further in Vulkan. The Arc A770 scores 94,284, while the Radeon Pro WX 9100 manages 54,711 — a 72.3% delta in favor of Intel.

Q: Are these cards from the same generation or process node?

A: No. The Intel Arc A770 uses a 6 nm TSMC process with the Xe-HPG architecture (Alchemist generation), while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with GCN 5.0 (Radeon Pro Polaris generation). The Intel card was released in October 2022; the AMD card dates to July 2017.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 16 GB, but the types differ. The Arc A770 uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the WX 9100 uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Intel Arc A770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc A770 is built on the DG2-512 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 uses the Vega 10 chip with GCN 5.0 architecture, made on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a larger 495 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 25.3M per mm².

The Arc A770 features 32 ray tracing cores, whereas the WX 9100 has none — a significant architectural divergence reflecting the Intel card's modern gaming and compute focus. Both cards have 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs, but the ROP count differs: 128 on the Intel side versus 64 on the AMD side. This explains the large pixel rate gap, with the Arc A770 delivering 307.2 GPixel/s against 96.00 GPixel/s for the WX 9100. Texture rates also favor Intel: 614.4 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds reinforce the architectural differences. The Arc A770 runs at a 2100 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the WX 9100 operates at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory clocks are also higher on the Intel card, with 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective). The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x16 for Intel versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD. Display outputs reflect their target markets: the Arc A770 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the WX 9100 provides 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers two compute-oriented tests, and the Intel Arc A770 wins both outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A770 scores 109,175 against 66,605 for the WX 9100 — a 63.9% lead. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the Intel card's higher FP32 throughput (19.66 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS) translates directly into measurable compute advantage.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The Arc A770 posts 94,284, while the WX 9100 finishes at 54,711 — a 72.3% delta. Vulkan is often more sensitive to driver efficiency and architectural modernities, and here the Xe-HPG architecture's newer design appears to pay off handsomely. Notably, the Arc A770's FP16 performance (39.32 TFLOPS) is also nearly double the WX 9100's 24.58 TFLOPS, which may contribute to compute-heavy workloads.

The closest rival context puts these numbers in perspective. The Arc A770's nearest rival is the NVIDIA CMP 90HX, with an average score of 69,000 and a delta of -0.3%. The WX 9100's nearest rival is the NVIDIA CMP 30HX at 63,842, with a delta of 0.6%. So while the Intel card sits just above its closest competitor, the AMD card sits just below its own nearest rival — reinforcing the overall performance hierarchy.

Specification Differences

Beyond the architectural differences already covered, several specification fields distinguish the two cards. The Arc A770 has a transistor count of 21,700 million versus 12,500 million for the WX 9100, and a die size of 406 mm² versus 495 mm². The Intel card's higher density (53.4M / mm² versus 25.3M / mm²) reflects the more advanced 6 nm process.

Memory bandwidth slightly favors Intel: 512.0 GB/s versus 483.8 GB/s. However, the WX 9100 uses a much wider 2048-bit bus with HBM2, while the Arc A770 uses a 256-bit bus with GDDR6. Pixel rate is drastically different at 307.2 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 614.4 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 19.66 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 39.32 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS.

Power draw is similar, with the Arc A770 rated at 225 W and the WX 9100 at 230 W. Both use dual-slot designs with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 550 W. Physical dimensions differ only in that the WX 9100 is specified at 267 mm length and 111 mm height; the Arc A770's dimensions are not listed. The WX 9100 also has six mini-DisplayPort outputs versus the Arc A770's four outputs (one HDMI, three DisplayPort). API support differs in DirectX version (12 Ultimate versus 12) and Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.3).

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Arc A770 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 across every benchmark in the comparison set. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (68,809 versus 64,212), and sits at a higher percentile among all GPUs (90th versus 89th). The largest win comes in Vulkan, where the Arc A770 leads by 72.3%, and the smallest win is still a commanding 63.9% in OpenCL.

The specification sheet reinforces this verdict. The Arc A770 has more than double the transistor density, nearly double the FP32 throughput, quadruple the pixel rate, and a 28.2 GB/s bandwidth advantage. It also brings ray tracing cores, which the WX 9100 entirely lacks. For users running compute workloads that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the Intel card is the stronger choice by a wide margin.

However, the WX 9100 is not without merit. Its 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus offers a different memory profile that may suit certain legacy or specialized workloads. Its six mini-DisplayPort outputs make it a candidate for multi-display professional setups. And its lower transistor count and older process node mean it is a simpler, more mature design — though the data does not show any performance benefit from that maturity.

For buyers choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Arc A770 delivers superior performance in both tested APIs and holds a higher average score. The WX 9100's only advantages are its display output count and its older, wider memory interface — neither of which translates into a single benchmark win.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Arc A770: The Arc A770 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 109,175 versus 66,605, a 63.9% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 94,284 versus 54,711, a 72.3% lead. The Intel card also wins on raw specification metrics: FP32 compute (19.66 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS), FP16 compute (39.32 versus 24.58 TFLOPS), pixel rate (307.2 versus 96.00 GPixel/s), texture rate (614.4 versus 384.0 GTexel/s), and memory bandwidth (512.0 versus 483.8 GB/s). It is the clear choice for compute-heavy applications, modern API workloads, and any task that can leverage ray tracing.

AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100: The WX 9100 does not win any benchmark in the comparison set. Its strengths are limited to specific hardware characteristics: it offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus the Arc A770's 4 outputs, and it uses HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, which may be preferable for certain memory-latency-sensitive or capacity-oriented professional workloads. Its 230 W TDP is only 5 W higher than the Arc A770's 225 W, so power efficiency is roughly comparable. But in terms of raw performance, the data shows no scenario where the WX 9100 comes out ahead. Users with legacy software that is optimized for GCN architecture or that exclusively uses older display connections might find the WX 9100 serviceable, but the benchmark evidence points firmly toward the Intel Arc A770 for virtually any modern workload.