AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

The Intel Arc A350M and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT occupy very different tiers of the mobile graphics market, yet their aggregate benchmark scores place them surprisingly close together. The Arc A350M averages 24,647 points across its two recorded Geekbench tests, while the RX 6600 XT averages 24,442 across its full suite, giving the Intel part a 0.8% edge in the overall comparison. However, this aggregate parity masks a massive gulf in raw compute capability: in the two directly comparable Geekbench tests, the AMD part leads by 65.8% to 69.5%. The RX 6600 XT is the overwhelmingly faster GPU, but the Arc A350M achieves its near-equal average score by being tested only on OpenCL and Vulkan, whereas the AMD card’s average is dragged down by a series of low-scoring Passmark tests. The data shows a clear verdict: the RX 6600 XT is the performance king, while the Arc A350M is a low-power part whose modest compute is reflected in its 25 W TDP versus the AMD card’s 160 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has an average benchmark score of 24,647, which is 0.8% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT's average of 24,442. This places both GPUs at the 70th percentile for all GPUs.

Q: In the direct head-to-head tests, which GPU wins?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 80,503 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 24,546 for the Arc A350M, a 69.5% lead, and 72,417 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 24,747, a 65.8% lead.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The RX 6600 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has a TDP of 25 W, while the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT has a TDP of 160 W. The AMD card also requires a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT has 2,048 shading units and 32 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A350M has 768 shading units and 6 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the release dates for these GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT was released on 2021-07-29, and the Intel Arc A350M was released on 2022-03-29. Both are now listed as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different generations. The Intel Arc A350M uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist generation for Arc 3 Mobile. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, part of the Navi II generation for the RX 6000 series.

Manufacturing process is a key differentiator. The Arc A350M is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 6600 XT uses a larger 7 nm process, also at TSMC. Despite the smaller node, the Intel chip packs far fewer transistors: 7,200 million on a 157 mm² die, versus 11,060 million on a 237 mm² die for AMD. The transistor density is nearly identical, at 45.9M per mm² for Intel and 46.7M per mm² for AMD, indicating that the node advantage is offset by the Intel chip’s simpler design.

Compute resources differ dramatically. The Arc A350M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, while the RX 6600 XT has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: 6 RT cores on Intel versus 32 on AMD. Neither GPU has dedicated tensor cores listed.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The Arc A350M offers 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6600 XT doubles capacity to 8 GB, uses a 128-bit bus, and achieves 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds favor AMD as well: the RX 6600 XT runs at a base of 1968 MHz and boosts to 2589 MHz, while the Arc A350M operates at 1150 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The effective memory speed is 14 Gbps on Intel versus 16 Gbps on AMD.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Physical design differs: the Arc A350M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, whereas the RX 6600 XT is a dual-slot card measuring 190 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm with 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data provides only two direct comparisons, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600 XT scores 80,503 against the Arc A350M’s 24,546. This translates to a 69.5% delta, meaning the AMD card delivers more than three times the raw compute throughput in this test. The margin is consistent in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6600 XT scores 72,417 versus 24,747, a 65.8% advantage.

These results are not close calls. The RX 6600 XT’s superiority in shading units (2,048 vs 768), texture rate (331.4 GTexel/s vs 105.6 GTexel/s), and pixel rate (165.7 GPixel/s vs 52.80 GPixel/s) is directly reflected in the benchmark numbers. The FP32 throughput tells the same story: 10.60 TFLOPS for AMD versus 3.379 TFLOPS for Intel. Even in FP16, where the Arc A350M achieves 6.758 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, the RX 6600 XT reaches 21.21 TFLOPS.

However, the aggregate average scores paint a different picture. The Arc A350M’s average of 24,647 is actually 0.8% higher than the RX 6600 XT’s 24,442. This happens because the Intel GPU is only measured on two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), both of which return scores in the 24-25k range. The RX 6600 XT’s average includes a wide range of tests, including Passmark DirectX 9 (194), DirectX 10 (109), DirectX 11 (163), DirectX 12 (61), G2D (912), G3D (16,461), and GPU Compute (7,520). These lower scores pull its average down despite the massive OpenCL and Vulkan wins.

In the nearestRivals data, the two GPUs trade positions. For the Arc A350M, the RX 6600 XT is listed as a rival with a deltaPct of 0.8, meaning the Intel part is 0.8% ahead on average. For the RX 6600 XT, the Arc A350M is a rival with a deltaPct of -0.8, confirming the same relationship from the opposite direction. Both are near the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24,277) in this aggregate metric.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is the far more powerful GPU in every direct compute test, and it should be the choice for anyone prioritizing raw graphics performance. Its 69.5% lead in OpenCL and 65.8% lead in Vulkan are decisive, backed by a 3.1x advantage in FP32 throughput (10.60 TFLOPS vs 3.379 TFLOPS) and a 2.3x advantage in memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s vs 112.0 GB/s). The RX 6600 XT also offers double the VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB), which is critical for modern game textures and higher resolutions.

The Intel Arc A350M’s only statistical win is its 0.8% higher average benchmark score, which is an artifact of test selection rather than a real performance advantage. Its 25 W TDP makes it a compelling choice for ultra-portable or power-constrained designs, but the data shows it sacrifices roughly two-thirds of the AMD card’s compute performance to achieve that efficiency. The RX 6600 XT, with its 160 W TDP, is a desktop-class part that requires a 450 W PSU and a dual-slot cooler, making it unsuitable for thin-and-light laptops.

For gaming, content creation, or any workload that stresses the GPU, the RX 6600 XT is the clear winner. For a low-power integrated solution where battery life and thermals are paramount, the Arc A350M fits a niche that the RX 6600 XT cannot occupy. The verdict from the benchmark results is that these are not truly competing products; the RX 6600 XT targets performance, while the Arc A350M targets efficiency.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: Intel Arc A350M uses 6 nm; AMD RX 6600 XT uses 7 nm (both TSMC).
• Transistors: Intel 7,200 million; AMD 11,060 million.
• Die Size: Intel 157 mm²; AMD 237 mm².
• Shading Units: Intel 768; AMD 2,048.
• TMUs: Intel 48; AMD 128.
• ROPs: Intel 24; AMD 64.
• Ray Tracing Cores: Intel 6; AMD 32.
• Base Clock: Intel 1150 MHz; AMD 1968 MHz.
• Boost Clock: Intel 2200 MHz; AMD 2589 MHz.
• Memory Size: Intel 4 GB; AMD 8 GB (both GDDR6).
• Memory Bus Width: Intel 64-bit; AMD 128-bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel 112.0 GB/s; AMD 256.0 GB/s.
• FP32 Performance: Intel 3.379 TFLOPS; AMD 10.60 TFLOPS.
• Pixel Rate: Intel 52.80 GPixel/s; AMD 165.7 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Intel 105.6 GTexel/s; AMD 331.4 GTexel/s.
• TDP: Intel 25 W; AMD 160 W.
• Slot Width: Intel IGP; AMD Dual-slot.
• Power Connectors: Intel None; AMD 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: Intel None; AMD 450 W.
• Display Outputs: Intel Portable Device Dependent; AMD 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.
• Dimensions: Intel Not listed; AMD 190 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm.
• Release Date: Intel 2022-03-29; AMD 2021-07-29.
• Launch MSRP: AMD 379 USD (Intel has no list price).

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT wins in: All compute-heavy workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 80,503 and Vulkan score of 72,417 dwarf the Arc A350M’s 24,546 and 24,747, respectively. The RX 6600 XT also wins in memory-intensive tasks thanks to 256.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s, and in any application that needs more than 4 GB of VRAM. Its 165.7 GPixel/s pixel rate and 331.4 GTexel/s texture rate make it suitable for high-resolution rendering and complex shader effects. The 32 ray tracing cores versus 6 give it a substantial edge in ray-traced games. This is the GPU for gaming, 3D rendering, video editing, and GPU compute.

Intel Arc A350M wins in: Power efficiency and portability. With a 25 W TDP, it consumes 6.4x less power than the RX 6600 XT’s 160 W. The IGP form factor requires no power connectors and fits in designs where a dual-slot 190 mm card cannot. Its aggregate benchmark score of 24,647 is 0.8% higher than the RX 6600 XT’s 24,442, giving it a narrow statistical edge in average performance metrics, though this is driven by test selection. The Arc A350M’s 6 nm process node is more advanced than the 7 nm node on the RX 6600 XT, potentially offering better thermal behavior per watt. For ultra-thin laptops, fanless designs, or systems where battery life is the priority, the Arc A350M is the only viable choice between these two. It also supports the same modern APIs (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, OpenGL 4.6), so it can run the same software, just at lower performance levels.