AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs Intel Arc A380 Comparison

# AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs Intel Arc A380

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M and Intel Arc A380 are two compact graphics processors aimed at different segments of the mobile and entry-level desktop market. Based on the database records, the AMD part holds a clear overall advantage, winning 6 of the 9 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel part takes 3 wins. The average benchmark score for the RX 6500M is 10362, placing it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the Arc A380 averages 8558, sitting at the 44th percentile. The nearest rivals for the RX 6500M include the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (average score 10400, delta -0.4%), the GeForce GTX 950A (10273, delta 0.9%), the RX 550X (10481, delta -1.1%), and the R9 M275X (10582, delta -2.1%). The Arc A380's closest competitors are the AMD FirePro W5170M (8595, delta -0.4%), Radeon HD 8870M (8462, delta 1.1%), GeForce MX330 (8458, delta 1.2%), and Radeon 880M (8436, delta 1.4%). This places both cards in a similar performance tier, but the AMD part consistently leads in most compute and legacy DirectX workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M dominates in raw graphics throughput and older API performance. Its largest win comes in PassMark DirectX 11, where it scores 70 against the Arc A380's 38, a delta of 84.2%. The DirectX 9 test shows a 26% advantage (92 vs 73), and DirectX 10 shows a 40.5% lead (52 vs 37). The Geekbench Vulkan test is another decisive victory: 43837 vs 36736, a 19.3% margin. The OpenCL test is nearly a tie, with the RX 6500M edging ahead by 0.9% (38586 vs 38224). The PassMark G3D score also favors AMD by 20.5% (7531 vs 6252), which is the most representative overall gaming metric in the dataset.

The Arc A380 wins in three specific areas. Its PassMark G2D score of 610 versus 385 represents a 36.9% advantage, indicating stronger 2D desktop composition and display output performance. The DirectX 12 test is essentially a dead heat, but Intel takes it by 2.9% (35 vs 34). The GPU compute test also goes to Intel, 2762 vs 2669, a 3.4% margin. These wins suggest the Arc A380 has better compute efficiency and newer API handling, but they are narrow margins compared to the large gaps AMD posts in DirectX 9, 10, and 11.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. It contains 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The Intel Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, also on a 6 nm TSMC process, but with 7,200 million transistors across a 157 mm² die, yielding a lower density of 45.9 million per mm².

Both GPUs have identical shading unit counts (1024), texture mapping units (64), and render output units (32). The RX 6500M has 16 ray tracing cores, while the Arc A380 has 8, which suggests AMD has more dedicated RT hardware per shading unit. Neither GPU has tensor cores listed in the database.

Clock speeds differ notably. The RX 6500M runs at a base clock of 2000 MHz with a boost of 2400 MHz and a game clock of 2191 MHz. The Arc A380 also has a 2000 MHz base clock, but its boost is only 2050 MHz. This clock advantage translates directly into compute throughput: the RX 6500M delivers 4.915 TFLOPS FP32 and 9.830 TFLOPS FP16, while the Arc A380 produces 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS FP16.

Memory configurations are split. The RX 6500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, providing 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has more memory capacity and bandwidth, which can help in texture-heavy scenes, but the AMD card compensates with higher clocks and a faster pixel rate of 76.80 GPixel/s versus 65.60 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors AMD: 153.6 GTexel/s versus 131.2 GTexel/s.

The power envelopes are different as well. The RX 6500M is rated at 50 W TDP and is designed as an integrated GPU solution (IGP slot width) with no power connectors, making it suitable for thin laptops. The Arc A380 is a dual-slot card consuming 75 W, requiring a single 8-pin connector and a 250 W suggested PSU. The bus interface also differs: the AMD part uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which could affect data transfer in bandwidth-limited scenarios.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6500M is from the Radeon RX 6000 series (Navi Mobile generation) and is marked as end-of-life, released in January 2022. The Arc A380 belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, also end-of-life, released in June 2022 with a successor named Battlemage. The Intel card has a launch MSRP of 149 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head data is the PassMark DirectX 11 test. The RX 6500M scores 70, which is 84.2% higher than the Arc A380's 38. This is not a marginal gap; it represents a fundamental difference in how each GPU handles the legacy DirectX 11 pipeline. In DirectX 10, the AMD card posts a 40.5% lead (52 vs 37), and in DirectX 9 the margin is 26% (92 vs 73). These consistent wins across older API levels suggest the RDNA 2 architecture has more mature driver overhead and better compatibility with legacy workloads.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a 19.3% advantage for the RX 6500M (43837 vs 36736), which is significant for modern cross-platform graphics workloads. The OpenCL test is much closer, with AMD leading by only 0.9% (38586 vs 38224). This near parity in OpenCL indicates that both GPUs have similar raw compute capability, but the AMD part expresses it better in graphics-oriented tasks.

The PassMark G3D score, often used as a proxy for overall gaming performance, gives the RX 6500M a 20.5% win (7531 vs 6252). This aligns with the DirectX 11 and Vulkan results and reinforces the picture of AMD as the stronger gaming GPU.

The Arc A380's wins are narrower but reveal its strengths. The PassMark G2D score of 610 versus 385 is a 36.9% advantage, which is the largest margin Intel achieves. This suggests better 2D acceleration or display composition performance. The DirectX 12 test is nearly identical, with Intel ahead by 2.9% (35 vs 34), indicating that the newer API is where Intel's architecture holds up best. The GPU compute score of 2762 versus 2669 gives Intel a 3.4% edge, aligning with the OpenCL result that shows both parts are compute-competitive.

Looking at the average scores, the RX 6500M's 10362 is 20.5% higher than the Arc A380's 8558, which matches the G3D delta exactly. The percentile rankings also reflect this: 48th versus 44th percentile. The nearest rival data confirms that both GPUs sit in a crowded mid-range field, with the RX 6500M trading blows with the Tesla C2075 and RX 550X, while the Arc A380 is closely matched with the FirePro W5170M and Radeon 880M.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the superior graphics processor for gaming and legacy API workloads. It wins the majority of benchmarks, often by substantial margins: 84.2% in DirectX 11, 40.5% in DirectX 10, 26% in DirectX 9, 20.5% in G3D, and 19.3% in Vulkan. Its higher boost clock (2400 MHz vs 2050 MHz), greater FP32 throughput (4.915 vs 4.198 TFLOPS), and higher pixel and texture rates all contribute to this dominance. The RX 6500M also has double the ray tracing cores (16 vs 8), which may benefit future titles that utilize RT heavily.

The Intel Arc A380 is the better choice for users who prioritize 2D desktop performance, as shown by its 36.9% G2D lead, or who need more video memory and bandwidth: 6 GB on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s versus 4 GB on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s. The Arc A380 also wins in GPU compute by 3.4% and ties in DirectX 12, indicating that its Xe-HPG architecture has competitive modern API performance. However, these wins are not enough to offset the AMD part's massive leads in older DirectX versions.

For a laptop or compact system where power is a concern, the RX 6500M's 50 W TDP and no external power connectors make it far more flexible than the Arc A380's 75 W TDP and 8-pin connector requirement. The AMD card is also an integrated GPU solution, while the Intel part is a dual-slot add-in card. If the workload is primarily gaming, the RX 6500M is the clear pick. If the workload involves compute tasks or requires more memory capacity, the Arc A380 has specific advantages that could justify its selection. The database shows a 21% average score gap in favor of AMD, and that is the headline number.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has an average benchmark score of 10362, while the Intel Arc A380 averages 8558, a difference of roughly 21%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in DirectX 11 performance?

A: The RX 6500M scores 70 in PassMark DirectX 11, which is 84.2% higher than the Arc A380's 38. This is the largest single benchmark margin between the two cards.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380 win in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Arc A380 wins three tests: PassMark G2D (610 vs 385, a 36.9% lead), PassMark DirectX 12 (35 vs 34, a 2.9% lead), and PassMark GPU compute (2762 vs 2669, a 3.4% lead).

Q: Which GPU has more video memory and bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD RX 6500M has 4 GB on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 6500M has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the Arc A380 has a 75 W TDP and needs one 8-pin connector with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD RX 6500M has 16 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc A380 has 8. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate with the 12_2 feature level.