AMD Radeon RX 470 vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 470 records an average benchmark score of 28996, placing it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Arc A350M averages 24647, which lands in the 70th percentile.

Q: How does the RX 470 compare to its closest rivals in average score?

A: The RX 470 sits within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28874, 0.4% higher), the Intel Arc A370M (29175, 0.6% lower), the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29197, 0.7% lower), and the AMD FirePro W8000 (29211, 0.7% lower). Essentially, it trades blows with that group.

Q: What are the direct benchmark results between the RX 470 and Arc A350M?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 470 scores 33568 versus 24546 for the Arc A350M, a 36.8% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 470 scores 39884 versus 24747, a 61.2% lead. The RX 470 wins both head-to-head tests.

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The RX 470 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 211.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A350M also has 4 GB, but it is GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing hardware?

A: The Intel Arc A350M includes 6 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon RX 470 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 470 has a 120 W TDP and requires a 300 W suggested PSU with a single 6-pin power connector. The Arc A350M has a 25 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors or suggested PSU listed.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 470 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture using the Ellesmere chip. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.6 million per mm². This is a desktop discrete card from the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation, released in August 2016.

The Intel Arc A350M uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip. It is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, achieving 45.9 million transistors per mm². This is a mobile integrated graphics processor from the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation, released in March 2022.

The architectural gap shows in feature support. The RX 470 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Arc A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part also adds 6 ray tracing cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely.

Die size and density tell a story of process evolution. The RX 470 uses a larger 232 mm² die with fewer transistors, while the Arc A350M uses a smaller 157 mm² die with more transistors. That is a direct result of the 14 nm versus 6 nm process difference. The RX 470 has a dual-slot form factor with a 240 mm length, while the Arc A350M is an IGP with no physical dimensions listed, meaning it is soldered onto a motherboard or laptop board.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the AMD Radeon RX 470 for raw compute performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, and its average score of 28996 is 17.6% higher than the Arc A350M's 24647. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 470 is 61.2% ahead, which is a massive gap. Anyone looking for stronger general GPU compute should choose the RX 470 without hesitation.

However, the Arc A350M has its own advantages. It consumes only 25 W TDP versus 120 W for the RX 470. That is a 95 W difference. For thin-and-light laptops or low-power embedded systems, the Arc A350M is the only practical choice, since it is an IGP with no power connectors. The RX 470 requires a 300 W PSU and a 6-pin connector, which rules it out for portable or compact builds.

The Arc A350M also brings modern features: DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and 6 ray tracing cores. The RX 470 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, with no ray tracing hardware. If the workload requires those newer APIs or ray tracing, the Arc A350M is the better fit despite its lower raw scores.

In short, pick the RX 470 for maximum performance and compatibility with older API levels. Pick the Arc A350M for power efficiency, modern API support, and ray tracing capability. The two are not direct substitutes; they serve different physical and feature requirements.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category.

Process and die: The RX 470 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. The Arc A350M uses a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die.

Clock speeds: The RX 470 has a base clock of 926 MHz and a boost clock of 1206 MHz. The Arc A350M has a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz.

Memory: The RX 470 uses 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 211.2 GB/s bandwidth and 1650 MHz memory clock (6.6 Gbps effective). The Arc A350M uses 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth and 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective).

Compute units: The RX 470 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Arc A350M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, plus 6 ray tracing cores.

Rates and throughput: The RX 470 achieves a pixel rate of 38.59 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 154.4 GTexel/s, and FP32 of 4.940 TFLOPS. The Arc A350M achieves a pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s, and FP32 of 3.379 TFLOPS. The Arc A350M doubles FP16 to 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1), while the RX 470 runs FP16 at 4.940 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical: The RX 470 has a 120 W TDP, dual-slot width, a 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Arc A350M has a 25 W TDP, is an IGP, has no power connectors, and no suggested PSU.

Bus and outputs: The RX 470 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and has 1x HDMI 2.0b plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Arc A350M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Release and status: The RX 470 launched in August 2016 with a launch MSRP of 179 USD and is end-of-life. The Arc A350M launched in March 2022 with no launch MSRP listed and is also end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the AMD Radeon RX 470 wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 470 scores 33568 against 24546 for the Arc A350M. That is a 36.8% advantage. This test measures general compute performance across a variety of workloads, and the RX 470's higher shading unit count (2048 versus 768) and wider memory bus (256-bit versus 64-bit) likely drive this result. The RX 470 also has more than double the memory bandwidth at 211.2 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens considerably. The RX 470 scores 39884 against 24747 for the Arc A350M, a 61.2% lead. Vulkan is a low-level API that benefits from raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the RX 470. Its FP32 output of 4.940 TFLOPS exceeds the Arc A350M's 3.379 TFLOPS by roughly 46%, and its texture rate of 154.4 GTexel/s is 46% higher than 105.6 GTexel/s.

The Arc A350M does have a higher boost clock at 2200 MHz versus 1206 MHz, and a higher pixel rate at 52.80 GPixel/s versus 38.59 GPixel/s. However, those advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The RX 470's superior raw compute resources and memory subsystem dominate the actual measured performance.

The overall win count is 2-0 in favor of the RX 470. The Arc A350M has no recorded benchmark wins against the RX 470 in the database.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 470 wins on raw compute performance. It leads by 36.8% in OpenCL and 61.2% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 28996 is 17.6% higher than the Arc A350M's 24647. For any workload that stresses FP32 compute, texture throughput, or memory bandwidth, the RX 470 is the clear choice. Its 256-bit memory bus and 211.2 GB/s bandwidth give it a massive edge in memory-heavy tasks. The RX 470 also sits in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, four points higher than the Arc A350M's 70th percentile.

Intel Arc A350M wins on power efficiency and modern features. The 25 W TDP makes it suitable for systems where 120 W is unacceptable. Its 6 nm process and 45.9M transistors per mm² density allow this efficiency. The Arc A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and includes 6 ray tracing cores, none of which the RX 470 offers. Its FP16 throughput of 6.758 TFLOPS is higher than the RX 470's 4.940 TFLOPS, which benefits workloads that use mixed-precision math. The Arc A350M also has a higher boost clock (2200 MHz) and higher pixel rate (52.80 GPixel/s), which helps in fill-rate-limited scenarios.

Use-case split: For desktop gaming, compute workloads, or any application that can tolerate a 120 W discrete card, the RX 470 is the stronger performer. For laptops, ultra-portables, or systems with strict power budgets, the Arc A350M is the only realistic option. For ray tracing or DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the Arc A350M is required. For legacy API compatibility or maximum raw FPS in Vulkan, the RX 470 wins outright. The two GPUs are not interchangeable, and the choice depends entirely on the physical and power constraints of the target system.