AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM vs Intel Arc Pro A60M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently records no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM versus the Intel Arc Pro A60M. Both cards hold identical percentile rankings against all GPUs, sitting at the 50th percentile, which places them at the midpoint of the performance distribution. Their average benchmark scores are also equal at zero in the recorded data, meaning no aggregate performance advantage can be derived from the existing measurements. The absence of head-to-head scores means any performance comparison must rely on the architectural and specification differences listed in the database rather than direct measured outcomes. The Radeon RX 7400 OEM delivers a higher FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS, which is roughly 48% above the Arc Pro A60M's 5.325 TFLOPS in single-precision floating-point work. Conversely, the Intel part reaches 10.65 TFLOPS in FP16 (2:1 ratio), which is 35% higher than the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS in FP16 (1:1 ratio), indicating a clear split between FP32-heavy and FP16-heavy workloads. Texture and pixel rates also favor Intel: the Arc Pro A60M posts 166.4 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s for the AMD card, a 35% advantage in texture fill, and 83.20 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s, a 18% lead in pixel fill. Memory bandwidth strongly favors the Intel part at 256.0 GB/s, while the AMD card offers 172.8 GB/s, a 48% deficit for the Radeon. These raw throughput figures suggest the Intel Arc Pro A60M is better suited to bandwidth-sensitive and pixel-heavy tasks, while the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM holds the edge in FP32 compute and ray tracing core count.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural families. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish" and belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses the DG2-256 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture and belongs to the Alchemist generation, specifically the Pro-Series Mobile line. Both chips are fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes differ substantially. The AMD Navi 33 packs 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The Intel DG2-256 has 11,500 million transistors on a larger 269 mm² die, yielding a lower density of 42.8M per mm². This means the AMD chip achieves higher transistor density despite the same process node. The Radeon RX 7400 OEM implements 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), 64 render output units (ROPs), and 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Pro A60M has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, but only 16 ray tracing cores. The shading unit and TMU counts favor Intel, while the ray tracing core count favors AMD by a notable margin. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card is a single-slot design with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, while the Intel part is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dedicated power connectors listed and no suggested PSU rating. The bus interface also differs: the AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel part uses PCIe 4.0 x16, giving the Arc Pro A60M twice the PCIe lane width for data transfer. Display outputs vary as well: the AMD card provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the Intel part's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile-oriented design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM delivers 7.885 TFLOPS in FP32, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M provides 5.325 TFLOPS. The AMD card is approximately 48% faster in single-precision compute.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has 28 ray tracing cores, whereas the Intel Arc Pro A60M has 16 ray tracing cores. This gives AMD a 75% higher ray tracing core count.

Q: Are both GPUs manufactured on the same process node?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM and the Intel Arc Pro A60M are fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. However, the AMD chip has a higher transistor density of 65.2M per mm² versus 42.8M per mm² for the Intel chip.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M has a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, which is 48% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM's 172.8 GB/s. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M has a boost clock of 1300 MHz, while the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Intel part boosts 18% higher, though the AMD card has a lower base clock of 330 MHz versus 900 MHz for Intel.

Q: What are the power consumption ratings?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has a TDP of 55 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel Arc Pro A60M has a TDP of 95 W and no suggested PSU rating listed.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specification fields. In terms of chip and architecture, the AMD part uses Navi 33 with RDNA 3.0, while the Intel part uses DG2-256 with Xe-HPG. The AMD card has a codename "Hotpink Bonefish" and generation "Navi III (RX 7000)", while the Intel part has no codename and generation "Alchemist (Pro-Series Mobile)". Transistor count differs: 13,300 million for AMD versus 11,500 million for Intel. Die size is 204 mm² for AMD versus 269 mm² for Intel, and transistor density is 65.2M per mm² versus 42.8M per mm². Clock speeds differ in base (330 MHz for AMD, 900 MHz for Intel) and boost (1100 MHz for AMD, 1300 MHz for Intel). Memory clocks also differ: the AMD card runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective, while the Intel card runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. Memory bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s for AMD versus 256.0 GB/s for Intel. Shading units are 1792 versus 2048, TMUs are 112 versus 128, ROPs are equal at 64, and ray tracing cores are 28 versus 16. Pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s versus 83.20 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 7.885 TFLOPS versus 5.325 TFLOPS, while FP16 compute is 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 55 W versus 95 W. Slot width is single-slot versus IGP. The AMD card has a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Intel card has neither. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 versus "Portable Device Dependent." The AMD card has a length of 167 mm (6.6 inches), while the Intel card has no listed dimensions. Production status is null for AMD and "Active" for Intel. Release dates are 2025-08-07 for AMD and 2023-06-05 for Intel. The AMD card has a predecessor "Navi II" and successor "Navi IV", while the Intel card has neither listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM wins in scenarios that demand high single-precision floating-point throughput. Its FP32 performance of 7.885 TFLOPS exceeds the Intel Arc Pro A60M by roughly 48%, making it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute tasks that rely on FP32 math, such as simulation workloads, scientific calculations, and certain physics engines. The AMD card also has 28 ray tracing cores compared to 16 on the Intel part, giving it a 75% higher ray tracing core count, which suggests better raw ray tracing capacity for supported workloads. Additionally, the AMD card carries a much lower TDP of 55 W versus 95 W, indicating higher energy efficiency per watt for compute tasks, and it includes dedicated display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1) for direct monitor connections, making it suitable for desktop workstation setups. The AMD card also has a single-slot form factor with a 167 mm length, which fits into compact chassis configurations.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M wins in bandwidth-sensitive and pixel-heavy workloads. Its memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is 48% higher than the AMD card's 172.8 GB/s, which benefits texture-heavy applications, large framebuffer operations, and data-intensive rendering. The Intel part also posts higher texture and pixel rates: 166.4 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s (35% higher) and 83.20 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s (18% higher), respectively. These figures indicate stronger fill-rate performance for rasterization-heavy tasks. The Intel card also has more shading units (2048 versus 1792) and more TMUs (128 versus 112), which can improve throughput in shader-bound scenes. Its FP16 performance of 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is 35% higher than the AMD part, making it better suited for workloads that can leverage reduced-precision math, such as certain AI inference and image processing pipelines. The Intel part also has a wider PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus x8, which doubles the bandwidth available for CPU-GPU data transfers, beneficial for tasks that stream large datasets. Its higher boost clock of 1300 MHz versus 1100 MHz also contributes to peak throughput in burst workloads. The Intel card's status as an IGP with "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs positions it for mobile or embedded applications where space and power connector flexibility are priorities, though its higher TDP of 95 W indicates greater power draw. The database shows no direct benchmark wins for either card, so these conclusions are drawn strictly from the recorded specification data.