AMD Radeon R9 M375X vs Intel Arc A310 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375X has an average benchmark score of 8325, while the Intel Arc A310 averages 7550. This places the R9 M375X in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Arc A310's 40th percentile.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A310 compare to the AMD Radeon R9 M375X in OpenCL performance?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A310 scores 30607, a 73% advantage over the R9 M375X's score of 8273.

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

A: The Intel Arc A310 provides 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth using 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X offers 72.00 GB/s using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which architecture is newer and on a smaller process node?

A: The Intel Arc A310 uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC node, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC node.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare for each GPU?

A: For the R9 M375X, the closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 at 8265 (0.7% behind), while for the Arc A310, the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7557 is nearly identical (0.1% ahead of the Arc A310's average).

Q: Which GPU supports the higher DirectX version?

A: The Intel Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, produced on a 28 nm TSMC process with a die size of 123 mm² and 1,500 million transistors. The Intel Arc A310 uses the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process with a die size of 157 mm² and 7,200 million transistors. This results in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm² for AMD versus 45.9M per mm² for Intel.

The R9 M375X features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Arc A310 has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Critically, the Arc A310 includes 6 ray tracing cores, which the R9 M375X completely lacks. The Intel card also supports FP16 compute at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the AMD card has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs significantly: the R9 M375X uses a 128-bit GDDR5 bus with 2 GB capacity, while the Arc A310 uses a 64-bit GDDR6 bus with 4 GB capacity. Despite the narrower bus, the Arc A310's faster memory clock (1937 MHz versus 1125 MHz) delivers substantially higher bandwidth.

The bus interface also differs. The AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Intel card uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Arc A310 lists a 30 W TDP, single-slot design, no power connectors, and a 200 W suggested PSU. The R9 M375X has no TDP or slot width data recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the Intel Arc A310 winning both recorded head-to-head tests decisively. The R9 M375X does not win any of the two benchmark comparisons. However, the R9 M375X holds a higher average benchmark score across all tests (8325 versus 7550), which suggests its limited benchmark set skews results.

The R9 M375X's advantage lies in its position relative to its nearest rivals. It sits just 0.7% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and 1.2% behind the GeForce GTX 675MX, making it competitive within its peer group. The Arc A310, by contrast, sits essentially tied with the AMD Radeon R7 250 (0.1% ahead) and trails the Radeon Pro WX 3100 by 0.4%.

For raw compute workloads, particularly OpenCL and Vulkan, the Arc A310 is the clear choice. For users comparing within the R9 M375X's generation, the AMD card remains competitive with its immediate peers. The Arc A310's ray tracing support and FP16 capability give it features the older AMD card cannot match.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification. The process node differs: 28 nm for AMD versus 6 nm for Intel. Transistor count is 1,500 million versus 7,200 million, and die size is 123 mm² versus 157 mm².

Clock speeds: the R9 M375X runs at 925 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost, while the Arc A310 runs at 1750 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks are 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for Intel.

Memory: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for AMD versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus for Intel. Bandwidth is 72.00 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s.

Compute units: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for AMD versus 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for Intel. The Arc A310 adds 6 RT cores. Pixel rate is 16.24 GPixel/s for AMD versus 28.00 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 40.60 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 2.688 TFLOPS.

The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel. Display outputs: the Arc A310 lists 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0, while the R9 M375X has none recorded. API support: DirectX 12 (11_1) versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.4.

Release dates: May 4, 2015 for AMD versus October 11, 2022 for Intel. Both are end-of-life. The R9 M375X's predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile; the Arc A310's predecessor is Xe Graphics and successor is Battlemage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data covers two tests, and the Intel Arc A310 wins both by wide margins.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A310 scores 30607 against the R9 M375X's 8273. This is a 73% advantage for Intel. The margin is substantial, reflecting the Arc A310's higher shading unit count, much faster clocks, and greater memory bandwidth.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Arc A310 scores 28964 against 8377 for the R9 M375X. The delta is 71.1% in favor of Intel. This test also shows the Arc A310's newer architecture handling modern API workloads more efficiently.

The R9 M375X's best recorded score is its Vulkan result of 8377, which is its higher of the two benchmarks. However, even that best score falls far short of the Arc A310's lower result of 28964 in the same test. The average benchmark score for the R9 M375X is 8325, while the Arc A310's average is 7550; this discrepancy is explained by the Arc A310's additional Passmark tests (DirectX 9 through 12, G2D, G3D, and compute) which pull its average down.

The Arc A310's Passmark results are mixed: G3D at 5433, compute at 2157, G2D at 625, DirectX 9 at 69, DirectX 11 at 33, DirectX 10 at 31, and DirectX 12 at 29. These lower DirectX scores in the Passmark suite contrast sharply with its strong Geekbench results.

The Verdict

The data clearly shows the Intel Arc A310 as the superior performer in modern compute benchmarks, with 73% and 71.1% advantages in OpenCL and Vulkan respectively. Its 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 output, 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 6 ray tracing cores give it capabilities the R9 M375X cannot approach. The Arc A310 also offers double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB) and newer API support.

The R9 M375X does hold one notable distinction: its average benchmark score of 8325 exceeds the Arc A310's 7550, and it sits at the 43rd percentile versus the Arc A310's 40th. This is due to the different benchmark suites recorded for each card, not necessarily real-world performance. The R9 M375X's nearest rivals, including the Quadro K1200 at 8265 and GTX 675MX at 8427, show it remains competitive within its own generation.

Users should choose the Intel Arc A310 for any modern workload requiring compute performance, ray tracing, or higher memory capacity. The R9 M375X may still serve legacy systems where its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and older GCN architecture match existing hardware, and where its competitive standing against its immediate peers is sufficient. The Arc A310's single-slot design, 30 W TDP, and no power connector requirement also make it the more practical choice for compact or low-power builds.