AMD Radeon RX 6700M vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6700M and Intel Arc A350M represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by launch timing and design philosophy. The RX 6700M, an end-of-life RDNA 2.0 part from May 2021, is positioned as a high-end mobile solution, while the Arc A350M, an end-of-life Alchemist entry from March 2022, targets the entry-level segment. Benchmark data shows the RX 6700M holds a commanding lead in the two shared tests, yet the Arc A350M achieves a nearly identical overall percentile ranking, hinting that raw compute power is not the only metric that defines a mobile GPU’s standing.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700M wins decisively in every benchmark where both GPUs were tested. In the two head-to-head comparisons available, the AMD part dominates. The most extreme gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6700M scores 90,816 against the Arc A350M’s 24,747 — a delta of 267%. That is not a marginal victory; it is a class-level difference. The AMD GPU’s advantage in Geekbench OpenCL is similarly massive, at 77,666 versus 24,546, translating to a 216.4% lead. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the RX 6700M is the clear choice.

The Arc A350M, however, does not win any of the shared benchmarks. Its strengths, if any, would have to be inferred from its overall percentile and average score rather than direct head-to-head wins. With an average benchmark score of 24,647, the Intel part sits only 986 points below the RX 6700M’s 25,633 average. This proximity suggests that in application-level performance — beyond the specific compute tests — the gap narrows considerably. The Arc A350M’s 70th percentile ranking versus the RX 6700M’s 71st percentile implies that in a broad database of GPUs, the two occupy nearly the same performance tier. The RX 6700M wins the compute tests outright, but the Arc A350M appears competitive in overall workload variety.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is substantial. The RX 6700M uses the Navi 22 chip on RDNA 2.0, built on a 7 nm TSMC process, while the Arc A350M uses the DG2-128 chip on Xe-HPG, built on a more advanced 6 nm TSMC node. Despite the smaller process, Intel’s chip is physically smaller and simpler: 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die versus AMD’s 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die. The transistor density tells a story of design efficiency — AMD packs 51.3M transistors per mm², while Intel manages 45.9M per mm² — meaning AMD’s larger die is not just bigger but also denser.

The RX 6700M fields 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, alongside 36 ray tracing cores. The Arc A350M counters with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, plus only 6 ray tracing cores. This is a 3x difference in shading units and a 6x difference in ray tracing cores. Clock speeds tell a different story: the RX 6700M boosts to 2400 MHz with a base of 1489 MHz, while the Arc A350M boosts to 2200 MHz from a 1150 MHz base. The AMD part runs faster and has far more execution resources, explaining its compute dominance. Memory further separates them: the RX 6700M offers 10 GB GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Arc A350M has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6700M also connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, whereas the Arc A350M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Verdict

From the data, the RX 6700M is the unequivocal performance winner. In OpenCL, it is 216.4% faster; in Vulkan, it is 267% faster. It has more than triple the shading units, six times the ray tracing cores, and nearly triple the memory bandwidth. If the workload is compute-heavy or ray-traced, the RX 6700M is the only rational pick. The Arc A350M, however, draws only 25 W versus the RX 6700M’s 135 W TDP. That is a 110 W difference, which in a mobile context translates to dramatically different thermal and battery profiles. For a thin-and-light laptop where sustained performance is secondary to portability, the Arc A350M may be the more practical choice — despite losing every benchmark. The data shows a trade-off: raw performance versus power efficiency. The RX 6700M wins on capability; the Arc A350M wins on restraint.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700M has an average benchmark score of 25,633, while the Intel Arc A350M averages 24,647.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 6700M scores 90,816 versus the Arc A350M’s 24,747, a 267% advantage for AMD.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

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

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 6700M has 10 GB GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, while the Arc A350M has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The RX 6700M has 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, versus 7,200 million on a 157 mm² die for the Arc A350M.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 6700M boosts to 2400 MHz, compared to the Arc A350M’s 2200 MHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks where both GPUs were measured are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the RX 6700M posts 77,666 points against the Arc A350M’s 24,546. That is a 216.4% delta, meaning the AMD part is roughly three times faster. In Vulkan, the gap widens further: 90,816 versus 24,747, a 267% delta. The RX 6700M’s Vulkan score is notably higher than its OpenCL score, while the Arc A350M’s Vulkan score is nearly identical to its OpenCL score (24,747 vs 24,546). This suggests the AMD architecture benefits more from Vulkan’s lower-level API access, extracting additional performance that the Intel part cannot match.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the RX 6700M’s other scores reinforce its position. It achieves 13,536 in Passmark G3D, 5,191 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 91911 in Geekbench Metal. The Arc A350M has no such numbers in the data pack, so direct comparison is impossible. However, the avgBenchmarkScore differential — 25,633 for AMD versus 24,647 for Intel — shows that when all available metrics are aggregated, the RX 6700M is only 4% ahead on average. This is a crucial nuance: in the two compute-heavy tests, AMD dominates by over 200%, but in the broader performance spectrum, the gap is far smaller. The implication is that the Arc A350M may hold up better in driver-optimized or less parallel workloads, where its lower power envelope does not penalize it as heavily.

Specification Differences

The RX 6700M and Arc A350M differ across nearly every core specification. Process node: 7 nm for AMD versus 6 nm for Intel. Transistors: 17,200 million versus 7,200 million. Die size: 335 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density: 51.3M / mm² versus 45.9M / mm². Base clock: 1489 MHz versus 1150 MHz. Boost clock: 2400 MHz versus 2200 MHz. Memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Memory size: 10 GB versus 4 GB. Bus width: 160 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth: 320.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s. Shading units: 2304 versus 768. TMUs: 144 versus 48. ROPs: 64 versus 24. Ray tracing cores: 36 versus 6. Pixel rate: 153.6 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 345.6 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 11.06 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS. FP16: 22.12 TFLOPS versus 6.758 TFLOPS. TDP: 135 W versus 25 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. The RX 6700M is larger, faster, and more powerful in every measurable way. The only areas where they match are the API support (both DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), slot width (both IGP), and display outputs (both portable device dependent).