AMD Radeon RX 590 GME vs Intel Arc A370M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparisons in the database are limited to two OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, and the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME dominates both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 36,294 against Intel’s 29,676, a 22.3% advantage. That is not a narrow margin; it represents a substantial lead in raw compute throughput that would translate into faster general-purpose GPU workloads, from video encoding to physics simulations.

The Vulkan gap is far more dramatic. The RX 590 GME posts 60,508 points, while the Arc A370M manages only 28,673. That is a 111% difference, meaning the AMD part delivers more than double the Vulkan performance in this specific test. Such a wide spread suggests the Intel mobile GPU struggles with driver overhead or architectural efficiency in Vulkan workloads, at least as captured by this benchmark. The data does not show a single test where the Arc A370M wins outright. Across the two recorded head-to-head results, the win count stands at 2 for AMD and 0 for Intel.

Looking at the broader average benchmark score, the RX 590 GME records 32,601, which places it at the 77th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Arc A370M averages 29,175, sitting at the 74th percentile. The percentage difference in average scores is roughly 11.7% in favor of AMD, though the percentile gap is only three points, indicating both cards occupy a similar performance tier overall. The nearest rivals for the RX 590 GME include the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 at 32,540 (0.2% behind), the Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 32,456 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile at 32,849 (0.8% ahead). For the Arc A370M, the closest competitors are the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29,197 (0.1% ahead), the FirePro W8000 at 29,211 (0.1% ahead), and the Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (0.6% behind).

The implication is clear: while both GPUs sit in a similar league, the RX 590 GME holds a consistent edge in the recorded tests. The Vulkan result especially underscores an architectural mismatch, where Intel’s newer Xe-HPG design does not yet translate into competitive API-level performance in this database’s measurements.

The Verdict

From the recorded data alone, the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME is the stronger performer. It wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score (32,601 vs. 29,175), and sits at a higher percentile ranking (77th vs. 74th). The Vulkan margin of 111% is the single most decisive data point; no interpretation of the numbers can flip that outcome. The OpenCL lead of 22.3% further reinforces the pattern.

Who should pick the RX 590 GME? Any user prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan applications, particularly those running on desktop systems where power draw is less of a constraint. The card’s 175 W TDP and dual-slot cooler are acceptable in a tower chassis.

Who should pick the Arc A370M? The data does not support a performance-based recommendation. However, the Intel part is a mobile GPU with a 35 W TDP, an IGP form factor, and no power connectors. For a laptop or compact portable device, the power envelope alone makes it the only practical choice in this comparison, even if its benchmark scores lag. The database shows the Arc A370M as end-of-life, but its efficiency profile is not measured in these tests, so any efficiency advantage remains qualitative.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME averages 32,601 points, while the Intel Arc A370M averages 29,175 points.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 590 GME scores 60,508 versus the Arc A370M’s 28,673, a 111% difference.

Q: Does the Arc A370M win any recorded benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head results show two wins for the RX 590 GME and zero for the Arc A370M.

Q: What is the closest rival to the RX 590 GME?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 is closest with an average score of 32,540, just 0.2% behind the RX 590 GME.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Arc A370M?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is closest at 29,197, only 0.1% ahead of the Arc A370M’s 29,175.

Q: How do the percentile rankings differ?

A: The RX 590 GME sits at the 77th percentile among all GPUs, while the Arc A370M sits at the 74th percentile.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The RX 590 GME uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A370M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card has twice the memory capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

Clock speeds favor Intel on paper. The Arc A370M runs at a 1550 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, while the RX 590 GME runs at 1257 MHz base and 1420 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD card runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while Intel runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The effective data rates are not directly comparable due to different memory types.

Compute resources tell a different story. The RX 590 GME has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Arc A370M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. AMD’s pixel rate is 45.44 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 65.60 GPixel/s, but AMD’s texture rate is 204.5 GTexel/s versus Intel’s 131.2 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 6.543 TFLOPS for AMD and 4.198 TFLOPS for Intel. The AMD card’s FP16 matches its FP32 at 6.543 TFLOPS (1:1), while Intel’s FP16 is 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1), indicating a different precision strategy.

Power and physical specs are opposites. The RX 590 GME draws 175 W, requires a 450 W suggested PSU, uses a dual-slot cooler, and needs a single 8-pin power connector. The Arc A370M draws 35 W, has no power connectors, and uses an IGP form factor. Bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel. Display outputs are extensive for AMD (1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while Intel’s are listed as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The RX 590 GME is built on AMD’s Polaris 20 chip, using the GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The Arc A370M uses Intel’s DG2-128 chip, based on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, achieving 45.9M per mm². The Intel chip has higher transistor count and density, but the AMD card has more shading units and TMUs.

The RX 590 GME supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Arc A370M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Intel has a more advanced DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. The Arc A370M also includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the RX 590 GME has none. Neither card lists tensor cores.

The AMD card belongs to the Polaris (RX 500) generation, released on March 8, 2020, with a predecessor of Arctic Islands and a successor of Vega. The Intel card is from the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation, released on March 29, 2022, with no listed predecessor or successor. Both are marked end-of-life in the database. The Intel GPU’s 2:1 FP16 ratio indicates a different compute philosophy, favoring half-precision workloads, while AMD’s 1:1 ratio keeps FP32 and FP16 equal.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 590 GME wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads as measured by OpenCL and Vulkan. The 22.3% OpenCL lead and 111% Vulkan lead make it the clear choice for tasks that rely on these APIs, such as GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific compute, or game workloads using Vulkan. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 256-bit bus also suggest better handling of large datasets, though the database does not include a memory-heavy test to confirm this.

The Arc A370M wins in the context of portability and integration. With a 35 W TDP, IGP form factor, and no external power connectors, it is designed for laptops and compact systems where the RX 590 GME’s 175 W draw and dual-slot cooler are impractical. The Intel card also has a newer DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set and 8 ray tracing cores, which could matter for games that leverage those features, but the recorded benchmarks do not include a DirectX 12 or ray tracing test to validate any advantage.

The data also shows the Arc A370M has a higher pixel rate (65.60 GPixel/s versus 45.44 GPixel/s), suggesting it may outperform in fill-rate-bound scenarios like certain post-processing effects or high-resolution UI rendering. However, no benchmark in the database isolates pixel throughput. The RX 590 GME counters with a higher texture rate (204.5 GTexel/s versus 131.2 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (6.543 TFLOPS versus 4.198 TFLOPS), which are strong indicators for traditional rasterization and general compute.

In summary, the RX 590 GME is the performance winner across every recorded test, while the Arc A370M is the efficiency and mobility choice, with architectural features that may appeal to users targeting newer API features or ray tracing, even if those advantages do not appear in the current benchmark data.