AMD Radeon RX 560X vs Intel Arc A770M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a stark and unambiguous picture: the Intel Arc A770M dominates the AMD Radeon RX 560X in every shared test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A770M scores 89,494 against the RX 560X’s 17,020, a performance gap of 81% in Intel’s favor. That is not a marginal victory; it is a generational leap. The Vulkan result tells the same story, with the Arc A770M posting 74,422 versus 20,231, a 72.8% advantage. There are no benchmark results where the RX 560X wins, and the head-to-head comparison shows a clean sweep: 0 wins for AMD, 2 wins for Intel.

The average benchmark scores across all recorded tests reinforce this hierarchy. The RX 560X averages 18,626 points, while the Arc A770M averages 18,383. That is a razor-thin difference of roughly 1.3%, placing them in the same percentile bracket (62nd for both). However, this near-parity in aggregate is misleading. The RX 560X’s average is built from only two Geekbench results, both of which are heavily compute-oriented. The Arc A770M’s average includes a broader suite, and its raw compute scores are so far ahead that other workloads dilute the overall figure. The data suggests that the RX 560X’s average is buoyed by a narrow test set, whereas the Arc A770M’s average reflects more varied workloads, including some where it is relatively weaker.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, the two cards occupy different performance tiers. The RX 560X sits within 1.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT and 0.5% of the AMD FirePro D500, and it trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 by 0.9%. The Arc A770M, meanwhile, is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon RX 460 (0.1% ahead), 0.8% behind the FirePro D500, and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5700. The Arc A770M also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile by 1.2%. In short, the RX 560X competes with upper-midrange desktop cards from a previous generation, while the Arc A770M’s average score places it in similar company, despite its much higher peak compute output.

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the data, the Intel Arc A770M is the clear winner for any workload that stresses raw compute throughput. Its 89,494 OpenCL score is more than five times the RX 560X’s 17,020, indicating massive superiority in general-purpose GPU compute tasks like rendering, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference. The Vulkan score of 74,422 versus 20,231 similarly points to a strong advantage in modern graphics APIs, which are increasingly compute-heavy. For gaming with Vulkan, the Arc A770M is in a different league.

The AMD Radeon RX 560X wins only in the sense of having a more consistent, if low, performance profile across the benchmarks it was tested in. It has no single test where it beats the Arc A770M. However, its 62nd percentile ranking and its proximity to the Radeon Pro 5700 XT and RTX 2070 suggest that, for its era, it was a competent performer. The RX 560X’s 2.611 TFLOPS of FP32 and 20.40 GPixel/s pixel rate are modest figures, but they are at least predictable. The Arc A770M’s scores, while dominant in compute, show volatility: its PassMark DirectX 9 score of 178 is disproportionately high compared to its DirectX 10 score of 56, and its PassMark G3D score of 11,774 is far lower than its OpenCL score would imply. This suggests the Arc A770M is not uniformly fast across all workloads, whereas the RX 560X, with fewer data points, appears more stable.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is cavernous, and the data reflects it. The RX 560X uses the Polaris 21 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². The Arc A770M, by contrast, uses the DG2-512 chip with Xe-HPG architecture, built on TSMC’s 6 nm process. It contains 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, achieving a density of 53.4 million per mm². That is over twice the density, enabling far more complex logic in the same area.

The execution resources tell the same story. The RX 560X has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Arc A770M has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs — exactly four times the shading units and TMUs, and eight times the ROPs. The Arc A770M also introduces 32 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX 560X. Clock speeds differ significantly as well: the RX 560X runs at a base of 1175 MHz and boost of 1275 MHz, while the Arc A770M runs at 1650 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost. Higher clocks, more units, and a denser process combine to produce the Arc A770M’s 16.79 TFLOPS of FP32, versus the RX 560X’s 2.611 TFLOPS.

Memory is another fundamental divider. The RX 560X is equipped with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A770M has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s. That is four times the capacity and roughly 4.5 times the bandwidth. The FP16 performance also differs: the RX 560X offers 1:1 FP16/FP32 (2.611 TFLOPS), while the Arc A770M offers 2:1 FP16/FP32 (33.59 TFLOPS), making it far more capable for half-precision compute. The power envelopes reflect these differences: the RX 560X is a 75 W dual-slot card with no power connectors, while the Arc A770M is a 120 W IGP (integrated graphics package) for mobile devices. The RX 560X uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Arc A770M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, doubling the interface width and generation.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A770M is the superior GPU in every measurable benchmark shared between the two. It is 81% ahead in OpenCL and 72.8% ahead in Vulkan. Anyone choosing between these two for compute-heavy tasks — 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific workloads, or modern game engines that leverage Vulkan or DX12 — should pick the Arc A770M without hesitation. Its 16 GB of memory and 512 GB/s of bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures, whereas the RX 560X’s 4 GB capacity is a hard ceiling for modern workloads.

The RX 560X is only defensible in a narrow context: if you need a low-power (75 W), slot-powered card for a legacy system with PCIe 3.0 and no auxiliary power connectors. Its 2.611 TFLOPS of FP32 and 112 GB/s bandwidth are enough for older games or basic 2D/3D acceleration, but not for anything demanding. The Arc A770M’s 120 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it is not a drop-in replacement for a desktop card; it is designed for mobile platforms. The RX 560X’s only advantage is compatibility with older hardware and its lower power draw. For raw performance, the Arc A770M wins every round.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A770M scores 89,494 versus the AMD Radeon RX 560X’s 17,020, making it 81% faster.

Q: Does the RX 560X win any benchmark against the Arc A770M?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks, the Arc A770M wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, with the RX 560X recording zero wins.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560X has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the Intel Arc A770M has 16 GB of GDDR6.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 560X offers 112.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The Arc A770M offers 512.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, which is roughly 4.5 times higher.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in overall average score?

A: They are close on average — 18,626 for the RX 560X and 18,383 for the Arc A770M — but this is misleading because the RX 560X has only two benchmark results, both compute-heavy, while the Arc A770M has a broader suite including lower DirectX scores.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing support?

A: Only the Intel Arc A770M has ray tracing cores (32 of them). The AMD Radeon RX 560X has no ray tracing hardware.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 560X | Intel Arc A770M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 21,700 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 406 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 53.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1175 MHz | 1650 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1275 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB GDDR5 | 16 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 64 | 256 |

| ROPs | 16 | 128 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 2.611 TFLOPS | 16.79 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1) | 33.59 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |