AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM vs Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM and the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem occupy completely different segments of the GPU market. The recorded data shows no overlapping benchmark results, so the use-case split must be inferred from their specifications and architectural roles. The RX 7400 OEM is a Radeon RX 7000 series part built for conventional graphics workloads, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is a generation 12.5 accelerator aimed at compute-heavy data center tasks.

For client-style rendering and display output, the RX 7400 OEM is the clear choice. It provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the Intel part has no display outputs at all. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which suits a desktop or workstation slot, while the Intel subsystem requires PCIe 5.0 x16, indicating a server-class installation. The RX 7400 OEM has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, meaning it can drive rasterization pipelines; the Intel part records 0 MPixel/s, confirming it does no traditional pixel output.

For compute throughput, the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem dominates. Its FP32 performance is 52.43 TFLOPS, roughly 6.6 times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the RX 7400 OEM. Texture rate also favors Intel at 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. The Intel part carries 128 GB of HBM2e memory with 3.21 TB/s bandwidth, while the AMD card has 8 GB GDDR6 at 172.8 GB/s. These figures indicate the Intel subsystem is optimized for memory-bound and parallel workloads such as large-scale simulation or AI inference, not for interactive graphics.

The RX 7400 OEM wins on power efficiency and physical footprint. Its TDP is 55 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, and it occupies a single slot. The Intel subsystem demands 2400 W with a 2800 W suggested PSU and takes a dual-slot form factor. The AMD card is 167 mm long, the Intel part is 267 mm. Any deployment requiring dense, low-power graphics cards in standard chassis would favor the RX 7400 OEM.

Architecture Differences

The two products use fundamentally different silicon. The RX 7400 OEM is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, from the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses the Ponte Vecchio chip on Generation 12.5 architecture, produced on Intel's 10 nm process. The generation field for Intel is listed as "Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio)."

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The Intel chip packs 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, while the AMD chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. Transistor density favors Intel at 78.1M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm² for AMD, despite the larger Intel die. The Intel part is a multi-die subsystem, as implied by its 1280 mm² area and massive transistor budget, while the AMD part is a monolithic mid-range GPU.

Memory architecture is another major split. The RX 7400 OEM uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s. The Intel subsystem uses 128 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus, producing 3.21 TB/s. The bus width difference (128 vs 8192 bits) explains the bandwidth gap: Intel's memory subsystem is about 18.6 times wider and delivers roughly 18.6 times the bandwidth. The Intel part also has 1024 texture mapping units versus 112 on AMD, and 128 ray tracing cores versus 28.

Shader resources differ in kind. AMD lists 1792 shading units, while Intel lists 16384 shading units. The Intel part has no ROPs (0), whereas AMD has 64 ROPs. This confirms Intel's design is not meant for final pixel output. API support also diverges: AMD supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan listed. The AMD card is therefore the more complete graphics API implementation.

Clock behavior is reversed. The RX 7400 OEM has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost of 1100 MHz, with memory at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The Intel part has a base of 900 MHz and boost of 1600 MHz, with memory at 1565 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). Despite lower clocks, the AMD card's efficiency comes from its small transistor count and 55 W TDP, while Intel's high clock and massive parallel units demand 2400 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem delivers 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, which is substantially higher than the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM's 7.885 TFLOPS.

Q: Can the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem output video to a display?

A: No. The Intel part lists no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: How do the memory sizes compare?

A: The Intel subsystem has 128 GB of HBM2e, while the AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR6. The Intel memory bandwidth is 3.21 TB/s versus 172.8 GB/s on AMD.

Q: Which card requires less power from the system?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel subsystem has a TDP of 2400 W and a suggested PSU of 2800 W.

Q: Are both GPUs from the same process node?

A: No. AMD uses a 6 nm TSMC process for Navi 33, while Intel uses a 10 nm process for Ponte Vecchio. Transistor density is 65.2M per mm² on AMD and 78.1M per mm² on Intel.

Q: Which card supports more ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel subsystem has 128 ray tracing cores, compared to 28 on the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM | Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Generation 12.5 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 100,000 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 1280 mm² |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1600 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 128 GB HBM2e |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 8192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 3.21 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 16384 |

| TMUs | 112 | 1024 |

| ROPs | 64 | 0 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | 128 |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 0 MPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 1,638.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 52.43 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 2400 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 2800 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | Not listed |

| Length | 167 mm | 267 mm |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head results for these two GPUs, and each has no nearest rivals listed. The wins are determined by comparing recorded specification data. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem wins on every raw compute metric. Its FP32 output of 52.43 TFLOPS is 44.545 TFLOPS higher than the AMD card, representing a 6.65x advantage. Texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s exceeds AMD's 123.2 GTexel/s by a factor of 13.3. Memory bandwidth of 3.21 TB/s is 18.6 times AMD's 172.8 GB/s.

The RX 7400 OEM wins on graphics-specific outputs. Its pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s is unmatched by Intel's 0 MPixel/s, meaning the AMD card can actually produce frames for display. The AMD part also supports Vulkan 1.4, a modern cross-platform graphics API that Intel does not list. DirectX support differs as well: AMD reaches 12 Ultimate (12_2) while Intel only reaches 12 (12_1), indicating AMD has the more current feature set for gaming workloads.

Power consumption is not a benchmark score, but it is a decisive operational metric. The AMD card draws 55 W under TDP against Intel's 2400 W, a 43.6x difference. The suggested PSU of 250 W versus 2800 W reinforces that the Intel subsystem requires a dedicated power infrastructure. The AMD card's single-slot design and 167 mm length make it compatible with small form factor systems, while Intel's dual-slot 267 mm length demands a server chassis.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile in the database's distribution of all GPUs. This is coincidental, as their performance envelopes are entirely different. The RX 7400 OEM is a low-power entry point in the Radeon RX 7000 series, while the Intel subsystem is a top-tier data center product from the Ponte Vecchio generation.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split by workload domain. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM is the only one of the two that can drive a display. With 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, it is a functional graphics card for standard desktop rendering, media output, or lightweight compute. Its 55 W TDP and single-slot profile allow deployment in power-constrained systems, and its 6 nm TSMC process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die is a modern, efficient design.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is not a graphics card in the conventional sense. It has zero pixel output, no ROPs, and no display connectors. Its 128 GB HBM2e memory and 3.21 TB/s bandwidth, combined with 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 and 128 ray tracing cores, position it for data center workloads that prioritize parallel throughput over frame rendering. The 2400 W TDP and 2800 W suggested PSU make it a server-only component, and its 8192-bit memory bus is unmatched by any client GPU.

Users seeking a card for interactive graphics, desktop output, or low-power rendering should select the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM. Users needing massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, and high FP32 throughput for non-display compute tasks should select the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem. The two products do not compete; they serve mutually exclusive requirements. The recorded data supports no other conclusion.