AMD Radeon RX 6800M vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 6800M across every recorded head-to-head test. In the two shared workloads, the AMD part dominates the Intel Arc A350M by margins that are not close. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6800M scores 87,621 against 24,546 for the Arc A350M, a 257% advantage. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: 94,766 versus 24,747, a 282.9% lead for the AMD GPU.

These are not minor differences. A 257% delta in OpenCL means the AMD part delivers more than three and a half times the raw compute throughput of the Intel option in that workload. The Vulkan gap is slightly larger, reflecting both the architectural muscle of the Navi 22 chip and the lower ceiling of the DG2-128 implementation in the A350M. The database records two wins for the RX 6800M and zero for the Arc A350M in direct comparisons.

Looking at broader averages, the picture remains consistent. The RX 6800M holds an average benchmark score of 28,874 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. The Arc A350M averages 24,647, good for the 70th percentile. That is a 4,227 point gap in raw average performance. The RX 6800M's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 570 (28,766, a 0.4% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996, -0.4%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28,580, 1%). The Intel Arc A370M sits at 29,175, 1% below the RX 6800M. The Arc A350M's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744, -0.4%), NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763, -0.5%), AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442, 0.8%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24,277, 1.5%). This positioning shows the RX 6800M competing in a higher performance tier, while the A350M clusters with older mid-range desktop parts.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design philosophies and process nodes. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M uses the Navi 22 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 17,200 million transistors onto a 335 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.3 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc A350M uses the DG2-128 chip with Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ substantially. The RX 6800M has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines. It also carries 40 ray tracing cores. The Arc A350M has just 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, along with 6 ray tracing cores. Neither GPU has dedicated tensor cores listed. In terms of raw throughput, the RX 6800M delivers 12.24 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 24.47 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio). The Arc A350M manages 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.758 TFLOPS FP16.

Memory architecture further separates these parts. The RX 6800M comes with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, achieving 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, for 112.0 GB/s. That is a 3x capacity advantage and more than a 3x bandwidth advantage for the AMD part. Clock speeds also favor AMD: the RX 6800M bases at 2116 MHz and boosts to 2390 MHz, with a game clock of 2300 MHz. The Arc A350M bases at 1150 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for Intel.

Power consumption tells the efficiency story. The RX 6800M has a TDP of 145 W, while the Arc A350M draws only 25 W. That is a 5.8x difference in power draw, which explains why the A350M targets thinner, more power-constrained laptops. Both are integrated into the motherboard (IGP slot width) with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The RX 6800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Arc A350M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The RX 6800M released on 2021-05-30, while the Arc A350M came later on 2022-03-29. The RX 6800M's predecessor is listed as Polaris Mobile, with no successor recorded. The Arc A350M has no predecessor or successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 94,766 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Intel Arc A350M scores 24,747. That is a 282.9% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The RX 6800M offers 384.0 GB/s from 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The Arc A350M offers 112.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The RX 6800M has a TDP of 145 W, while the Arc A350M has a TDP of 25 W. The Intel part consumes 5.8x less power.

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: How do their average benchmark scores compare relative to rivals?

A: The RX 6800M averages 28,874 and sits at the 74th percentile, with its nearest rival being the Intel Arc A370M at 29,175 (1% above). The Arc A350M averages 24,647 at the 70th percentile, with its nearest rival the AMD Radeon RX 590 at 24,744 (0.4% above).

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 6800M has 40 ray tracing cores, while the Arc A350M has 6.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows clear differences in nearly every specification category.

• Process node: 7 nm (AMD) versus 6 nm (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: 2116 MHz versus 1150 MHz
• Boost clock: 2390 MHz versus 2200 MHz
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 12 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory bus width: 192 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 384.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 2560 versus 768
• Texture mapping units: 160 versus 48
• Raster output pipelines: 64 versus 24
• Ray tracing cores: 40 versus 6
• Pixel rate: 153.0 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 382.4 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s
• FP32 throughput: 12.24 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS
• FP16 throughput: 24.47 TFLOPS versus 6.758 TFLOPS
• TDP: 145 W versus 25 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Release date: 2021-05-30 versus 2022-03-29

Both share the same IGP slot width, portable-device-dependent display outputs, and API support. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6800M is the far more powerful GPU. In the only two directly comparable benchmarks, it wins by 257% and 282.9%. Its average benchmark score of 28,874 is 17.1% higher than the Arc A350M's 24,647. The AMD part also carries 3x the memory, 3.4x the bandwidth, and 3.6x the FP32 compute of the Intel alternative.

However, the power story cannot be ignored. The RX 6800M requires 145 W, while the Arc A350M draws just 25 W. Anyone prioritizing raw performance should choose the RX 6800M without hesitation. Those who need extreme power efficiency in a thin-and-light chassis may find the Arc A350M more appropriate, but that choice comes with a major performance penalty.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6800M wins in every performance category recorded. It leads in compute benchmarks, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and shading unit count. It also holds a transistor density advantage over the Intel chip, despite being on a larger process node. The RX 6800M is the clear choice for gaming, content creation, or any GPU-accelerated workload where performance matters.

The Arc A350M wins only in power efficiency. Its 25 W TDP is dramatically lower than the RX 6800M's 145 W, making it suitable for ultra-portable laptops with limited cooling and battery budgets. It also has a smaller die size and fewer transistors, which may simplify integration in compact designs. For users who prioritize battery life and low heat output over frame rates and compute throughput, the Arc A350M has a place. For everyone else, the RX 6800M is the superior option based on the recorded data.