AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM vs Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a fundamental performance gap between these two graphics solutions. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile manages only 307.2 GFLOPS. This represents a 25.7x advantage for the AMD part in raw floating-point throughput, a difference that defines nearly every measurable aspect of their respective performance profiles.

Pixel throughput tells a similarly stark story. The RX 7400 OEM achieves a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, compared to 4.800 GPixel/s for the Intel UHD 710 Mobile. The AMD adapter outputs 14.7x more pixels per second, which directly translates to higher resolution capabilities and smoother frame presentation in display-bound workloads. Texture fill rates follow the same pattern: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 9.600 GTexel/s, a 12.8x gap that affects every texture-mapped scene.

The shading resources behind these numbers are heavily skewed. The RX 7400 OEM carries 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The Intel solution fields 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. In proportional terms, the AMD part has 14x the shading units, 14x the TMUs, and 16x the ROPs. These resource counts explain the compute and fill-rate deltas without requiring deeper architectural inference.

Ray tracing is present on the AMD side only. The RX 7400 OEM includes 28 dedicated ray accelerators, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile lists no ray tracing cores at all. This means hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads are simply unavailable on the Intel part, regardless of driver or software support.

Memory bandwidth reinforces the divide. The RX 7400 OEM uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 128-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD 710 Mobile relies on System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as System Dependent and memory type listed as System Shared. Dedicated graphics memory versus shared system memory is a structural difference that affects sustained throughput in memory-intensive tasks.

Both parts post identical percentile rankings in the database at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, but this metric reflects their position within their own capability classes rather than against each other. The benchmark data itself, where present, would show the RX 7400 OEM operating in a completely different performance tier.

Clock behavior differs in an interesting way. The Intel part boosts higher, reaching 1200 MHz versus 1100 MHz for the AMD card. The AMD part has a higher base clock at 330 MHz versus 300 MHz. Despite the Intel part's higher boost ceiling, its dramatically smaller execution resource pool means the clock advantage cannot compensate for the 14x deficit in shading units.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7400 OEM wins every category where dedicated execution resources matter. Discrete gaming workloads, 3D rendering, compute-heavy applications, and any task requiring sustained memory bandwidth all fall squarely in the AMD column. The 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth supports modern game assets and higher resolution textures, while the 28 ray accelerators enable hardware ray tracing that the Intel part cannot attempt.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile claims advantages only in power efficiency and physical integration. Its 15 W TDP compares to 55 W for the RX 7400 OEM, making it suitable for thermally constrained portable devices where the AMD card's single-slot footprint and 1x 6-pin power connector would not fit. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it requires no separate board space, no power connector, and no suggested PSU rating. The AMD card, by contrast, lists a 250 W suggested PSU and measures 167 mm in length.

For basic desktop compositing, video decode, and lightweight productivity tasks, the Intel UHD 710 Mobile provides adequate capability at minimal power cost. The RX 7400 OEM targets workloads where the Intel part would become a bottleneck: modern games, GPU-accelerated content creation, and any application that scales with shading units and memory bandwidth.

The FP16 ratio also differs. The RX 7400 OEM operates FP16 at 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Intel part achieves 614.4 GFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The AMD card's 1:1 FP16 ratio indicates full-rate half-precision execution, which benefits machine learning inference and certain compute workloads that leverage reduced precision.

Architecture Differences

The RX 7400 OEM uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, and fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses the Raptor Lake chip on Generation 12.2 architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The process node difference gives AMD a density advantage: the Navi 33 die packs 13,300 million transistors into 204 mm², for a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size in the database.

The RX 7400 OEM belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series and the Navi III (RX 7000) generation, with a predecessor in Navi II and successor in Navi IV. The Intel part sits in the HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake) generation, lists no predecessor, and names Arc Graphics-M as its successor. The AMD card was released on 2025-08-07, while the Intel part shipped on 2023-01-03, making the Intel solution roughly two and a half years older in release timing.

API support shows near parity with one notable exception. Both parts support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 7400 OEM supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel UHD 710 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The 12_2 feature level on the AMD card enables additional DirectX 12 Ultimate features, including hardware ray tracing support, which aligns with its 28 ray accelerators.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The AMD card uses discrete GDDR6 with a fixed 128-bit bus and fixed bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s. The Intel part uses System Shared memory with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. This means the Intel solution's memory performance varies with the host system's RAM configuration, while the AMD card delivers consistent, dedicated bandwidth.

The RX 7400 OEM exposes display outputs as 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The Intel part lists Portable Device Dependent outputs, reflecting its mobile IGP nature where display connectivity depends on the laptop or portable device implementation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, which is 25.7x higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile's 307.2 GFLOPS FP32.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile support ray tracing?

A: No. The Intel part lists no ray tracing cores, while the AMD RX 7400 OEM includes 28 ray accelerators.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The RX 7400 OEM uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD 710 Mobile uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD card has a 55 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a 250 W suggested PSU. The Intel IGP has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connector or suggested PSU.

Q: Which supports newer DirectX features?

A: The RX 7400 OEM supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel UHD 710 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The RX 7400 OEM has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Intel UHD 710 Mobile has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM | Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Generation 12.2 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | Not specified |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | Not specified |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory | 8 GB GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz 10.8 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 128 |

| TMUs | 112 | 8 |

| ROPs | 64 | 4 |

| Ray Accelerators | 28 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 4.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 9.600 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 307.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 614.4 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Release Date | 2025-08-07 | 2023-01-03 |

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of use cases. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM is the choice for any workload requiring dedicated graphics execution: gaming, 3D rendering, GPGPU compute, or hardware ray tracing. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 172.8 GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth, and 28 ray accelerators place it in a performance class that the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile cannot approach. The 14x advantage in shading units and TMUs, combined with the 16x advantage in ROPs, makes the RX 7400 OEM the only viable option for demanding visual workloads.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile serves a different purpose entirely. Its 15 W TDP, IGP form factor, Ring Bus interface, and absence of any power connector requirement make it suitable for portable and low-power devices where the RX 7400 OEM's 55 W TDP, 167 mm length, and 6-pin connector would be prohibitive. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 1200 MHz versus 1100 MHz does not offset its 128 shading units versus 1792.

The recorded data shows no scenario where the Intel part wins on performance. Its advantages are entirely in power draw, physical footprint, and system integration simplicity. The RX 7400 OEM wins on every compute, memory, and feature metric recorded in the database. Buyers selecting between these two parts are choosing between a discrete GPU for real graphics workloads and an integrated solution for basic display output in power-constrained portable devices.