AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs Intel Arc Pro B390 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusual comparison. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has recorded measurements across two separate tests, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 has no benchmark entries in the database at this time. This absence of recorded data for the Intel part makes a direct numeric head-to-head comparison impossible. Instead, the analysis must rely on the AMD card's position relative to its nearest rivals and the architectural specifications of both products.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M achieves an average benchmark score of 46,702 across its recorded tests. This places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc Pro B390, by contrast, carries a 50th percentile ranking, though this figure is derived from its position in the product stack rather than from any measured performance data, as its average score is recorded as zero.

Examining the AMD card's nearest rivals provides context for its measured performance. The Intel Arc A530M posts an average score of 46,614, which is 0.2% behind the RX 6550M. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 46,601, also 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 averages 46,043, a 1.4% deficit, while the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation scores 45,972, trailing by 1.6%. These margins are exceptionally tight, indicating that the RX 6550M sits at the top of a very closely grouped cluster of mobile and workstation GPUs.

In the individual OpenCL test, the RX 6550M records a score of 42,536. The Vulkan test shows a higher result of 50,867. This gap between API-specific scores is notable. The Vulkan result exceeds the OpenCL figure by a substantial margin, suggesting that the RDNA 2.0 architecture responds particularly well to Vulkan's lower-level driver overhead. The 2:1 FP16 ratio, listed at 11.63 TFLOPS against 5.816 TFLOPS FP32, indicates a consumer-oriented compute design rather than a workstation-focused one.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 has no benchmark scores to compare. Its theoretical specifications, however, tell a different story. The Intel part uses 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. This configuration yields 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16 compute. These figures exceed the AMD card's corresponding values. The RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, producing 5.816 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.63 TFLOPS FP16. The Intel chip holds a 32% advantage in raw FP32 throughput and a similar edge in FP16, though the AMD card has more TMUs and ROPs.

Pixel and texture rates follow this pattern. The RX 6550M outputs 90.88 GPixel/s and 181.8 GTexel/s. The Arc Pro B390 manages 60.00 GPixel/s and 120.0 GTexel/s. The AMD card leads by roughly 51% in pixel fillrate and 52% in texture fillrate. These rates reflect the differing shader-to-ROP and shader-to-TMU balances of each architecture.

The Intel part's memory configuration is listed as system shared, with bandwidth described as system dependent. This means its effective memory performance cannot be quantified from the database and will vary according to the host platform's memory subsystem. The AMD card uses dedicated 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For workloads sensitive to memory bandwidth, the AMD card offers a fixed, known quantity, whereas the Intel part's performance hinges on external factors.

Clock speeds differ sharply as well. The RX 6550M runs at a 2000 MHz base clock with a 2560 MHz game clock and a 2840 MHz boost clock. The Arc Pro B390 has a much lower 300 MHz base clock and a 2500 MHz boost clock, with no game clock listed. The AMD part's higher sustained clocks, combined with its dedicated memory, likely compensate for its lower shader count in many real-world scenarios, though the database has no direct measurements to confirm this.

The Verdict

The recorded data favors the AMD Radeon RX 6550M, but only because it has recorded data at all. The card sits in the 85th percentile of all GPUs and leads its nearest four rivals by margins ranging from 0.2% to 1.6%. Its average score of 46,702 is a measured, verifiable figure. The Intel Arc Pro B390, with zero benchmark entries and an average score of zero, cannot be positioned against the AMD part on the basis of performance measurements.

From a specification standpoint, the Intel part looks stronger on paper in raw compute. Its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 and 1,536 shading units exceed the AMD card's 5.816 TFLOPS and 1,024 shading units. But the Intel card's system shared memory, lower base clock, and reduced pixel and texture rates complicate the picture. A GPU that depends on shared system memory for bandwidth may not sustain its theoretical compute advantage in memory-bound workloads.

The 50th percentile ranking for the Intel part, against the AMD card's 85th, suggests that the database places the two products in different performance tiers despite their architectural proximity. The AMD card is an active, shipping product with measured results. The Intel part is also active but unmeasured. Buyers seeking a known quantity from the data would favor the RX 6550M. Those prioritizing raw shader throughput and a newer architecture would look toward the Arc Pro B390, accepting the absence of benchmark evidence.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M wins in every category where measured data exists. Its OpenCL score of 42,536 and Vulkan score of 50,867 place it ahead of all four nearest rivals by small but consistent margins. Its 144.0 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth provides predictable performance. Its 90.88 GPixel/s pixel rate and 181.8 GTexel/s texture rate outpace the Intel part's 60.00 GPixel/s and 120.0 GTexel/s. For tasks that rely on fillrate, such as traditional rasterization at moderate resolutions, the AMD card holds a clear specification advantage.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in raw compute throughput. Its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 is 32% higher than the AMD card's 5.816 TFLOPS. Its 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 similarly exceeds the AMD part's 11.63 TFLOPS. The 1,536 shading units give it more parallel execution resources. For compute-heavy workloads that scale with shader count and FP32 throughput, the Intel architecture has the theoretical edge.

The Intel part also uses a newer process node at 3 nm compared to the AMD card's 6 nm, and a newer architecture in Xe3-LPG against RDNA 2.0. It has fewer TMUs and ROPs, but more shading units and a higher boost clock relative to its base. The system shared memory design means the Intel card's bandwidth scales with the host system, which could be an advantage in unified memory architectures or a disadvantage in systems with slower memory.

The AMD card wins on memory determinism, fillrate, and measured performance. The Intel card wins on compute density, architecture generation, and process technology. Without benchmark data for the Intel part, the practical significance of its compute advantage remains unquantified.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has an average benchmark score of 46,702. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has an average score of zero with no recorded benchmarks.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 6550M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It leads the Intel Arc A530M by 0.2%, the AMD Radeon RX 5600M by 0.2%, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.4%, and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation by 1.6%.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 7.680 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 6550M's 5.816 TFLOPS, giving the Intel part a 32% advantage.

Q: What process nodes do the two GPUs use?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M uses a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses a 3 nm process at Intel.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 1,536 shading units. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M belongs to the Radeon RX 6000 series and uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0. It is part of the Navi Mobile generation. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip built on Xe3-LPG and belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM generation. The AMD card's predecessor is Polaris Mobile, while the Intel card's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM.

The process technology differs significantly. AMD uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. Intel uses a 3 nm process at its own foundry, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. The newer node gives Intel a potential efficiency advantage, though power consumption is identical on paper: both cards are rated at 80 W TDP with integrated form factors and no power connectors.

The compute architectures diverge in resource allocation. The RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The Arc Pro B390 has 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. AMD allocates more resources to texture and pixel processing, while Intel allocates more to shader compute. Neither card lists tensor cores.

Clock behavior differs markedly. The AMD card has a 2000 MHz base clock, a 2560 MHz game clock, and a 2840 MHz boost clock. The Intel card has a 300 MHz base clock and a 2500 MHz boost clock, with no game clock specified. The AMD card's higher base clock suggests it maintains performance more consistently under load, while the Intel card's low base clock implies a more aggressive boost-dependent design.

Memory architecture represents the largest structural difference. The AMD card uses dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and fixed 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. This affects not only performance but also how each GPU interacts with the host system. The AMD card's memory clock is listed at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The Intel card's memory operates at system shared speeds.

API support is identical across both products. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use integrated form factors with portable device dependent display outputs and PCIe connectivity, though the AMD card specifies PCIe 4.0 x4 while the Intel card lists its bus interface simply as IGP.

The AMD card has been on the market longer, with a release date of January 2023. The Intel card's release date is January 2026. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database. Both are listed as active production parts. The AMD card's FP16 throughput is listed as 11.63 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, and the Intel card's FP16 is 15.36 TFLOPS with the same 2:1 ratio, indicating neither architecture uses dedicated FP16 hardware acceleration beyond the standard shader pipeline.