GPU Comparison

The data shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon RX 6700 and the Intel Arc A370M, with the desktop GPU winning every shared benchmark by a wide margin. In the two tests where both parts have scores, the RX 6700 leads by a factor of roughly three, making this comparison less about close competition and more about confirming the RX 6700’s superior raw compute and graphics throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparisons available are Geekbench compute tests, and the results are lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 6700 scores 97,841 points against the Intel Arc A370M’s 29,676 points. That is a 229.7% advantage for AMD, meaning the RX 6700 delivers more than three times the OpenCL compute performance. This is not a marginal win; it is a generational chasm in raw number-crunching ability.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story. The RX 6700 posts 83,974 points, while the Arc A370M manages 28,673 points. The delta here is 192.9% in favor of AMD. While Vulkan is often more efficient on certain architectures, the RX 6700’s lead persists, indicating that its advantage is not API-specific but rooted in fundamental hardware differences.

Beyond these shared tests, the RX 6700 has a broader benchmark profile that reinforces its standing. Its PassMark G3D score is 18,931, and its average benchmark score across all tests is 30,433. The Arc A370M’s average benchmark score is 29,175, which is only 4.1% lower than the RX 6700’s average, but this narrow average gap is misleading. The Arc A370M only has two benchmark results available, both of which are heavily skewed toward compute workloads. In the actual head-to-head tests, the RX 6700’s wins are 229.7% and 192.9%, not single-digit percentages.

The percentile rankings are close, the RX 6700 sits at the 75th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A370M sits at the 74th, but this is a statistical artifact of the different benchmark pools. When the same workload runs on both, the RX 6700 dominates. The nearest rival data confirms this: the RX 6700’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA CMP 70HX with a -0.1% delta, while the Arc A370M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH with a -0.1% delta. Neither card is near the other in the rankings.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 wins every category where data exists. It is faster in OpenCL compute, faster in Vulkan graphics, and has a higher average benchmark score. Its wins are not narrow, they are by 229.7% and 192.9% respectively, which means the RX 6700 is not just ahead but in a different performance class.

The Intel Arc A370M has no benchmark wins in this comparison. However, the data indicates where its strengths would lie if it were competitive. Its architecture is designed for efficiency, with a 35 W TDP compared to the RX 6700’s 175 W. That makes the Arc A370M a candidate for thin-and-light laptops where power draw is the primary constraint. Its 4 GB memory configuration and 64-bit bus are suited for lighter workloads, and its 1024 shading units, while far fewer than the RX 6700’s 2304, are enough for entry-level gaming or content creation on the go.

In terms of raw performance per watt, the Arc A370M is the more efficient part. It delivers 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance at 35 W, whereas the RX 6700 delivers 11.29 TFLOPS at 175 W. The RX 6700 is about 2.7 times faster in FP32 but consumes 5 times the power. For a desktop user with a 450 W power supply, that tradeoff is irrelevant. For a laptop user, it is the entire point.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 is built on RDNA 2.0, using the Navi 22 chip, and belongs to the Navi II (RX 6000) generation. It is manufactured on TSMC’s 7 nm process, with 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die. The transistor density is 51.3 million per mm².

The Intel Arc A370M uses the Xe-HPG architecture, built on the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation. It is manufactured on TSMC’s 6 nm process, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The transistor density is 45.9 million per mm². Intel’s chip is smaller and denser, but it has fewer than half the transistors of AMD’s part.

The compute resources are starkly different. The RX 6700 has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines. It also has 36 ray tracing cores. The Arc A370M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with only 8 ray tracing cores. This 2.25:1 ratio in shading units and 4.5:1 ratio in ray tracing cores explains the benchmark results.

Memory is another major differentiator. The RX 6700 has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, yielding 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. The RX 6700 has nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions.

Clock speeds also favor AMD. The RX 6700 runs at a 1941 MHz base and 2450 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2174 MHz. The Arc A370M runs at a 1550 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost. The RX 6700’s boost clock is 400 MHz higher, and its memory runs at 16 Gbps effective versus 14 Gbps effective on the Arc.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature levels are identical. However, the RX 6700 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the Arc A370M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RX 6700 also has a dual-slot cooler with a single 8-pin power connector, while the Arc A370M is an IGP with no dedicated power connectors. The RX 6700 is 267 mm long (10.5 inches), 110 mm high (4.3 inches), and 40 mm wide (1.6 inches); the Arc A370M has no listed dimensions, reflecting its mobile, soldered nature.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 scores 97,841 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 229.7% higher than the Intel Arc A370M’s 29,676.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 6700 scores 83,974 in Geekbench Vulkan, a 192.9% advantage over the Arc A370M’s 28,673.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 6700 has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon RX 6700 and the Intel Arc A370M have a production status of "End-of-life."

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 6700 has a TDP of 175 W, while the Arc A370M has a TDP of 35 W. The RX 6700 also requires a 450 W power supply, while the Arc A370M has no suggested PSU.

Q: Do both support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 is the clear performance winner in every measurable category. It beats the Intel Arc A370M by 229.7% in OpenCL and 192.9% in Vulkan, and it has a higher average benchmark score (30,433 vs. 29,175). It also has more shading units (2304 vs. 1024), more ray tracing cores (36 vs. 8), more memory (10 GB vs. 4 GB), and more bandwidth (320.0 GB/s vs. 112.0 GB/s). For any desktop user who needs raw graphics or compute performance, the RX 6700 is the only choice from this pairing.

The Intel Arc A370M’s only advantage is power efficiency. At 35 W, it consumes one-fifth the power of the RX 6700’s 175 W, and its IGP form factor means it is designed for laptops where a discrete desktop card is impossible. It is also a smaller chip, 157 mm² versus 335 mm², and built on a more advanced 6 nm process. But the data shows that efficiency comes at a massive performance cost. The Arc A370M has no benchmark wins, and its 4 GB memory and 64-bit bus limit it to lighter workloads.

The verdict is straightforward: the RX 6700 is for desktop gamers and creators who want maximum performance and have a 450 W power supply. The Arc A370M is for mobile users who need a capable integrated GPU and prioritize battery life and thermals over frame rates. The benchmark data does not support any other conclusion.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6700 | Intel Arc A370M |

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

| Process Node | 7 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 17,200 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 335 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 51.3M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1941 MHz | 1550 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2450 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2174 MHz |, |

| Memory Clock | 16 Gbps effective | 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 10 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 320.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 144 | 64 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 36 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 156.8 GPixel/s | 65.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 352.8 GTexel/s | 131.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 11.29 TFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 22.58 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 175 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin |, |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W |, |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |