AMD Radeon RX 6700M vs Intel Arc A370M Comparison

The Intel Arc A370M and the AMD Radeon RX 6700M occupy very different positions in the mobile GPU landscape, and the recorded data makes the gap unusually stark despite their superficially similar percentile rankings. The A370M sits at the 74th percentile across all GPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 29175, while the RX 6700M sits at the 71st percentile with an average score of 25633. Those averages, however, are misleading artifacts of unequal sample coverage: the RX 6700M has results from eleven benchmark tests in the database, the A370M from only two. Where the two GPUs were measured on identical tests, AMD won every single matchup, and not by small margins. The open head-to-head results show the RX 6700M leading by 61.8 percent in Geekbench OpenCL and 68.4 percent in Geekbench Vulkan. This is not a close comparison; it is a question of what each chip was designed to do, and at what power cost.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. If the workload is anything resembling modern gaming, compute, or GPU-accelerated rendering, the RX 6700M is the only sensible choice of the two: it won both shared benchmark tests outright, posting 77666 versus 29676 in OpenCL and 90816 versus 28673 in Vulkan. Its 10 GB of GDDR6 memory, 320 GB/s of bandwidth, and 11.06 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput dwarf the A370M's 4 GB, 112 GB/s, and 4.198 TFLOPS. The A370M, meanwhile, is defined by efficiency rather than capability: its TDP is 35 W against the RX 6700M's 135 W, roughly a quarter of the power draw for roughly a third of the theoretical compute. That ratio is worth pausing on, because it suggests the Intel part delivers slightly better performance-per-watt in raw terms, which may matter for thin-and-light notebooks where thermal headroom is the binding constraint. Neither GPU is still in production; both are flagged as end-of-life in the database, so any comparison here is retrospective.

Architecture Differences

These two chips come from opposite design philosophies, even though both were fabricated by TSMC and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc A370M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, generation Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile), using the DG2-128 die on a 6 nm process. The RX 6700M uses the Navi 22 die on RDNA 2.0, part of the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation, on an older 7 nm process. The process advantage does not save Intel here. The A370M packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die for a density of 45.9M per mm², while the RX 6700M carries 17,200 million transistors across 335 mm² at 51.3M per mm². AMD's larger, denser die simply contains far more hardware: 2304 shading units versus 1024, 144 texture mapping units versus 64, 64 render output units versus 32, and 36 ray tracing cores versus 8.

Clock behavior differs in an interesting way. The A370M runs a higher base clock, 1550 MHz versus 1489 MHz, but its boost ceiling is much lower at 2050 MHz against 2400 MHz, and the RX 6700M additionally records a game clock of 2300 MHz that the Intel entry lacks entirely. Memory tells a similar story: the RX 6700M's memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) over a 160-bit bus, while the A370M's runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) over a 64-bit bus. The bus interface also differs, with PCIe 4.0 x8 on the Intel part versus PCIe 4.0 x16 on the AMD part. One curious note from the lineage data: the RX 6700M lists a predecessor, Polaris Mobile, while the A370M has no recorded predecessor or successor, consistent with it being Intel's first discrete mobile Arc generation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct comparisons in the database are limited to two tests, and both are one-sided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6700M scored 77666 against the A370M's 29676, a delta of 61.8 percent in AMD's favor. In Geekbench Vulkan the gap widens: 90816 against 28673, a 68.4 percent advantage. The Vulkan result is particularly telling, because it is the test closest to real game engine APIs, and the AMD part nearly triples the Intel score there. The tally stands at two wins for the RX 6700M and zero for the A370M.

The RX 6700M's broader benchmark record reinforces the picture. It posted 1845 in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12), 91911 in Geekbench Metal, 13536 in Passmark G3D, 5191 in Passmark GPU Compute, and a spread of Passmark DirectX results ranging from 65 in DX12 to 155 in DX9, plus 555 in the G2D test. The A370M has no recorded entries in any of those suites, which itself is informative: fewer tests in the database typically means fewer systems in circulation running them.

Context from each chip's nearest rivals adds nuance. The A370M's average score of 29175 lands it statistically alongside the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29197, a delta of just 0.1 percent), the AMD FirePro W8000 (29211, 0.1 percent), the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996, within 0.6 percent), and even the RX 6800M (28874, within 1 percent) on that averaged metric. That last pairing should raise an eyebrow, since it contradicts the head-to-head results dramatically, and it almost certainly reflects the uneven test coverage rather than genuine equivalence. The RX 6700M's average of 25633 places it near the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (25726, 0.4 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25740, 0.4 percent), the AMD FirePro D700 (25842, 0.8 percent), and the AMD FirePro W7100 (25856, 0.9 percent), a rival set of significantly larger professional and enthusiast-class parts.

Specification Differences

The fields where these two GPUs diverge, side by side:

• Chip and architecture: DG2-128 on Xe-HPG (Alchemist) versus Navi 22 on RDNA 2.0 (Navi Mobile)
• Process node: 6 nm versus 7 nm, both TSMC
• Transistors and die: 7,200 million on 157 mm² versus 17,200 million on 335 mm²
• Clocks: 1550 MHz base / 2050 MHz boost versus 1489 MHz base / 2400 MHz boost with a 2300 MHz game clock
• Memory: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus at 112 GB/s versus 10 GB GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus at 320 GB/s
• Shader hardware: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 8 RT cores versus 2304, 144, 64, and 36 respectively
• Throughput: 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS FP16 versus 11.06 and 22.12 TFLOPS
• Pixel and texture rates: 65.60 GPixel/s and 131.2 GTexel/s versus 153.6 GPixel/s and 345.6 GTexel/s
• TDP: 35 W versus 135 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Release date: March 2022 versus May 2021
• Predecessor: none recorded versus Polaris Mobile

Both share IGP slot classification, portable-device-dependent display outputs, identical API support, end-of-life status, and neither lists tensor cores or a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the shared benchmarks?

A: The RX 6700M, decisively. It leads 61.8 percent in Geekbench OpenCL and 68.4 percent in Geekbench Vulkan, winning both head-to-head tests.

Q: How much more power does the RX 6700M consume?

A: Its TDP is 135 W versus 35 W for the A370M, nearly four times the power budget.

Q: Is the memory capacity difference significant?

A: Yes. The RX 6700M has 10 GB of GDDR6 with 320 GB/s of bandwidth, while the A370M has 4 GB with 112 GB/s, which matters greatly at higher resolutions and texture settings.

Q: Do both support ray tracing?

A: Both have hardware RT cores, but not equally: 36 on the RX 6700M versus 8 on the A370M.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are recorded as end-of-life in the database.

Q: Which is newer?

A: The A370M, released in March 2022, roughly ten months after the RX 6700M's May 2021 release.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700M wins everywhere performance is the metric. Every shared benchmark, every theoretical throughput figure, and every memory metric favors it: nearly triple the FP32 compute, more than double the memory bandwidth, 2.5 times the memory capacity, more than twice the pixel and texture rates, and triple the shading units and ray tracing resources. For gaming, content creation, OpenCL or Vulkan compute workloads, and anything that stresses the memory subsystem, the recorded data leaves no ambiguity. Its rival set, anchored by parts like the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, confirms it competes in enthusiast mobile territory.

The A370M's case rests entirely on efficiency and platform placement. At 35 W, it delivers its modest performance from a power envelope that the 135 W RX 6700M cannot approach, making it the only option of the two for thermally constrained thin notebooks. Its percentile ranking of 74, slightly above the RX 6700M's 71, is a quirk of averaging across very different test samples and should not be read as a performance verdict. The honest reading of the data: these chips were never really competitors, and the benchmark record makes that plain.