AMD Radeon RX 7400 vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 is the clear performance leader in this comparison, delivering substantially higher compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and texture processing rates than the Intel Arc A310E. The recorded data shows the RX 7400 achieves 16.49 TFLOPS FP32 performance, more than five times the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS, with 288.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 124.0 GB/s for the Intel part. The RX 7400 also carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, double the Arc A310E's 4 GB capacity, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and larger frame buffers.

The database places the RX 7400 in the 17th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2467, while the Arc A310E sits in the 50th percentile despite having no recorded benchmark scores. This percentile discrepancy is unusual, yet the architectural data makes the RX 7400's superiority unambiguous. The RX 7400 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 204 mm² die with 13,300 million transistors, while the Arc A310E uses Xe-HPG on a smaller 157 mm² die with 7,200 million transistors. For users prioritizing raw performance, the RX 7400 is the only defensible choice from the available data.

The Arc A310E does hold advantages in specific areas. Its single-slot design, 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, and 75 W TDP with no external power connectors make it a compact option for space-constrained configurations. The RX 7400 requires a dual-slot footprint, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 200 W suggested PSU, whereas the A310E only suggests a 250 W PSU despite its lower TDP. The A310E also boosts to a higher base clock of 2000 MHz compared to the RX 7400's 1452 MHz base, though the RX 7400's boost clock reaches 2300 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The RX 7400 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, and belongs to the Navi III generation of the Radeon RX 7000 series. It uses the Navi 33 chip fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 204 mm² and packs 13,300 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The architecture includes 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Arc A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture from Intel, belonging to the Alchemist generation within the Arc 3 series. Its DG2-128 chip is also fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process, but the die is smaller at 157 mm² with 7,200 million transistors and a lower density of 45.9M per mm². The A310E provides 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. It matches the RX 7400 on API support, offering DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The RX 7400 runs at a 1452 MHz base, a 2200 MHz game clock, and a 2300 MHz boost. The A310E holds a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost, with no separate game clock listed. Memory clocks also diverge: the RX 7400's memory runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the A310E's memory operates at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective. The RX 7400's memory interface is 128 bit wide versus 64 bit on the A310E, which explains the large bandwidth gap.

The transistor and die size differences point to a more complex GPU in the RX 7400. Its transistor density of 65.2M per mm² exceeds the A310E's 45.9M per mm², confirming a denser and more capable design. The RX 7400's predecessor is Navi II, and its successor is Navi IV; the A310E's predecessor is Xe Graphics, and its successor is Battlemage. The A310E is marked end-of-life in the database, while the RX 7400 has no production status recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth through a 128 bit bus, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 124.0 GB/s over a 64 bit bus.

Q: How much faster is the RX 7400 in raw compute?

A: The RX 7400 achieves 16.49 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.97 TFLOPS FP16, compared to the A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS FP16. This is roughly 5.4 times higher FP32 throughput.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level compatibility is identical.

Q: Which card uses less power?

A: The RX 7400 has a 43 W TDP, while the Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP. However, the RX 7400 requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 200 W suggested PSU, whereas the A310E needs no power connector and suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The RX 7400 is dual-slot, while the Arc A310E is single-slot. The A310E measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. No dimensions are recorded for the RX 7400.

Q: How do the display outputs differ?

A: The RX 7400 offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The Arc A310E provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7400 | Intel Arc A310E |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Navi III (RX 7000) | Alchemist (Arc 3) |

| Chip | Navi 33 | DG2-128 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1452 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2300 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2200 MHz | None |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 124.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 768 |

| TMUs | 112 | 32 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 147.2 GPixel/s | 32.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 257.6 GTexel/s | 64.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 16.49 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 32.97 TFLOPS (2:1) | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 43 W | 75 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm |

| Production Status | Not recorded | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2025-08-07 | 2024-03-31 |

| Predecessor | Navi II | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | Navi IV | Battlemage |

The process node is identical at 6 nm TSMC for both, and both use the PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The A310E was released on 2024-03-31, while the RX 7400 followed on 2025-08-07.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark results exist in the database for these two GPUs. The RX 7400 has recorded scores across several tests, while the Arc A310E has no benchmark entries. The RX 7400's average benchmark score is 2467, placing it in the 17th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals by average score are the AMD Radeon 8040S at 2440 (1.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 710M at 2433 (1.4% behind), the Intel HD Graphics 610 at 2425 (1.8% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M at 2422 (1.9% behind). These are extremely close margins, indicating the RX 7400's average score sits in a tight cluster.

The RX 7400's individual benchmark results show its strongest performance in the Passmark G3D test with a score of 11897, followed by Passmark G2D at 1209, Passmark GPU Compute at 5152, and Passmark DirectX 9 at 176. Its DirectX 11 score is 97, DirectX 10 is 59, and DirectX 12 is 44. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields a score of 1103. The Arc A310E has no comparable scores, so a direct numerical comparison across these workloads is impossible from the recorded data.

The architectural specifications provide the clearest numerical comparison. The RX 7400's texture rate of 257.6 GTexel/s is roughly four times the A310E's 64.00 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s is about 4.6 times the A310E's 32.00 GPixel/s. Memory bandwidth favors the RX 7400 by a factor of 2.32, and FP32 compute favors it by a factor of 5.37. These ratios consistently indicate a much larger GPU in the RX 7400, with more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores across every category.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 wins in every raw performance category recorded. Its 8 GB memory capacity, 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, 1792 shading units, and 112 TMUs make it suitable for workloads that demand high texture throughput and large frame buffers. The 28 ray tracing cores give it a substantial advantage in ray-traced rendering tasks, and its 16.49 TFLOPS FP32 throughput supports demanding compute workloads. The recorded benchmark scores, including the 11897 Passmark G3D result and 5152 GPU compute score, confirm the RX 7400 handles general 3D rendering and compute tasks effectively. Its percentile rank of 17 among all GPUs indicates it outperforms the majority of recorded graphics hardware.

The Intel Arc A310E wins in physical design and integration flexibility. Its single-slot profile, 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width make it suitable for compact systems where space is limited. It draws no external power connectors and carries a 75 W TDP, though it suggests a 250 W PSU, which is higher than the RX 7400's 200 W suggestion despite the RX 7400's lower 43 W TDP. The A310E's 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs exceed the RX 7400's output count, offering more display connections in a smaller physical package. Its fixed 2000 MHz clock across base and boost simplifies thermal management, and its end-of-life status indicates it is a mature product with established driver support in the database.

The RX 7400 also wins on memory capacity, a critical factor for modern workloads. Its 8 GB GDDR6 buffer doubles the A310E's 4 GB, and its 128 bit bus provides more than double the bandwidth. The RX 7400's higher transistor count of 13,300 million versus 7,200 million, along with its larger 204 mm² die, underscores its superior compute resources. The A310E's 6 ray tracing cores versus 28 on the RX 7400 further separates the two in ray-traced scenarios.

For users selecting between these two, the data points to the RX 7400 for any performance-sensitive application. The A310E remains a viable option only where its compact single-slot form factor and connectorless power design are the primary requirements. The RX 7400's 43 W TDP, lower than the A310E's 75 W, adds efficiency to its performance advantages, making it the stronger overall product based on the recorded specifications.