AMD Radeon RX 7400 vs Intel Arc B770 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 and Intel Arc B770 occupy different tiers of the graphics card market, and the recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy between them. The RX 7400, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, delivers a modest set of benchmark results, while the Arc B770, based on Xe2-HPG, has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence of measured data for the Intel card is itself a significant finding, as it limits direct comparison to architectural and specification analysis rather than empirical testing.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two cards, meaning no direct side-by-side test results are available. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 has eight recorded benchmark scores, while the Intel Arc B770 has none. This asymmetry means the performance comparison must rely on the RX 7400’s absolute scores and its position relative to other GPUs, rather than a direct contest between the two.

The RX 7400’s highest recorded score comes from the Passmark G3D test, where it reaches 11,897 points. This is its strongest overall graphics performance indicator. In the Passmark G2D test, it scores 1,209 points, reflecting 2D rendering capability. The compute-oriented Passmark GPU Compute test yields a score of 5,152 points, which suggests a moderate level of general-purpose GPU compute throughput. In DirectX API-specific tests, the card scores 176 points in DirectX 9, 97 points in DirectX 11, 59 points in DirectX 10, and 44 points in DirectX 12. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test produces a score of 1,103 points.

The average benchmark score across all eight tests for the RX 7400 is 2,467 points. Its percentile ranking versus all GPUs is 17, meaning it outperforms roughly 17 percent of the database’s recorded graphics cards. The nearest rivals in the database, based on average scores, are the AMD Radeon 8040S with an average score of 2,440 points, the NVIDIA GeForce 710M at 2,433 points, the Intel HD Graphics 610 at 2,425 points, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M at 2,422 points. The RX 7400 leads these rivals by margins of 1.1 percent, 1.4 percent, 1.8 percent, and 1.9 percent, respectively. These deltas are narrow, indicating that the RX 7400 sits in a performance cluster with these older or lower-tier integrated and mobile graphics solutions, rather than establishing a commanding lead.

For the Arc B770, the database records no benchmark scores, no average benchmark score (listed as zero), and no nearest rivals. Its percentile ranking is 50, which is the median position, but this ranking appears to be a placeholder given the absence of measured data. Consequently, no wins can be attributed to either card in a head-to-head sense, as the database lists zero wins for both. The performance story is therefore one-sided: the RX 7400 has data, the Arc B770 does not, and any claims about the Intel card’s speed must be inferred from its specifications rather than demonstrated results.

Architecture Differences

The two cards diverge fundamentally in their underlying silicon and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 uses the Navi 33 chip, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Navi III generation within the Radeon RX 7000 series. The process node is 6 nm, fabricated by TSMC, with a transistor count of 13,300 million and a die size of 204 mm². This yields a transistor density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter.

The Intel Arc B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip, based on the Xe2-HPG architecture, and belongs to the Battlemage generation within the Arc 7 product line. Its process node is 5 nm, also from TSMC, but the transistor count is listed as unknown. The die size is substantially larger at 368 mm², and no transistor density figure is recorded. The larger die suggests a more complex chip, but without a transistor count, the density cannot be calculated or compared directly.

Clock speeds also differ markedly. The RX 7400 has a base clock of 1,452 MHz, a boost clock of 2,300 MHz, and a game clock of 2,200 MHz. Its memory clock runs at 2,250 MHz, translating to 18 Gbps effective. The Arc B770 has a higher base clock of 2,100 MHz and a boost clock of 2,400 MHz, but no game clock is listed. Its memory clock is 2,000 MHz, yielding 16 Gbps effective. Despite the higher base and boost clocks on the Intel card, the RX 7400’s memory operates at a higher effective data rate.

Memory subsystems are another clear point of divergence. The RX 7400 comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The Arc B770 doubles the capacity to 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, doubles the bus width to 256 bits, and offers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This represents a significant advantage for the Intel card in memory capacity and throughput, which could benefit high-resolution textures and large datasets.

Shader resources differ by a wide margin. The RX 7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 28 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The Arc B770 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, with 32 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The Intel card has more than twice the shading units, twice the TMUs, and twice the ROPs, along with four additional ray tracing cores. These specifications suggest a substantially higher theoretical throughput for the Arc B770.

Raw compute rates reflect this difference. The RX 7400 delivers a pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 257.6 GTexel/s, 16.49 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and 32.97 TFLOPS of FP16 performance with a 2:1 ratio. The Arc B770 achieves 307.2 GPixel/s, 614.4 GTexel/s, 19.66 TFLOPS of FP32, and 39.32 TFLOPS of FP16. The Intel card leads in every computed throughput metric, with pixel rate and texture rate both exceeding the AMD card by a factor of roughly two, while FP32 and FP16 are about 19 percent higher.

Power consumption and power delivery also set the cards apart. The RX 7400 has a thermal design power (TDP) of 43 W, occupies a dual-slot form factor, and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested power supply of 200 W. The Arc B770 has a TDP of 225 W, also occupies a dual-slot form factor, but requires a 6-pin plus an 8-pin power connector and a suggested power supply of 550 W. The Intel card draws considerably more power, consistent with its larger chip and higher performance targets.

The bus interface differs as well. The RX 7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Arc B770 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. This gives the Intel card twice the PCIe lane width, which can matter for data transfer between the CPU and GPU, though the practical impact depends on workload and platform.

Both cards share identical display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. They also support the same API set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 7400 has recorded benchmark data, with an average benchmark score of 2,467 points. The Intel Arc B770 has no recorded benchmarks, and its average score is listed as zero.

Q: How does the RX 7400 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7400’s average score of 2,467 points puts it 1.1 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon 8040S, 1.4 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 710M, 1.8 percent ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 610, and 1.9 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the Arc B770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus. The Intel card offers double the capacity and double the bus width.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The Arc B770 has a higher base clock of 2,100 MHz and a higher boost clock of 2,400 MHz, compared to the RX 7400’s 1,452 MHz base and 2,300 MHz boost. However, the RX 7400’s memory runs at 18 Gbps effective, higher than the Arc B770’s 16 Gbps effective.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested 200 W power supply. The Arc B770 has a TDP of 225 W and requires a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector with a suggested 550 W power supply.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the RX 7400 and the Arc B770 support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They also share the same display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon RX 7400 and the Intel Arc B770:

• Chip: Navi 33 versus BMG-G31
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus Xe2-HPG
• Codename: Hotpink Bonefish versus null
• Generation: Navi III (RX 7000) versus Battlemage (Arc 7)
• Process Node: 6 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: 13,300 million versus unknown
• Die Size: 204 mm² versus 368 mm²
• Transistor Density: 65.2M / mm² versus null
• Base Clock: 1,452 MHz versus 2,100 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2,300 MHz versus 2,400 MHz
• Game Clock: 2,200 MHz versus null
• Memory Clock: 2,250 MHz / 18 Gbps effective versus 2,000 MHz / 16 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 8 GB versus 16 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1,792 versus 4,096
• TMUs: 112 versus 256
• ROPs: 64 versus 128
• Ray Tracing Cores: 28 versus 32
• Pixel Rate: 147.2 GPixel/s versus 307.2 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 257.6 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 16.49 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS
• FP16: 32.97 TFLOPS versus 39.32 TFLOPS
• TDP: 43 W versus 225 W
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 200 W versus 550 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Release Date: August 7, 2025 versus December 31, 2025
• Predecessor: Navi II versus Alchemist
• Successor: Navi IV versus null
• Benchmarks: eight recorded scores versus none
• Percentile: 17 versus 50
• Average Benchmark Score: 2,467 versus 0
• Nearest Rivals: four entries versus none

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available data, the AMD Radeon RX 7400 wins in the domain of measured performance, simply because it is the only card with benchmark results. Its average score of 2,467 points and its 17th percentile ranking provide concrete evidence of its capability, even if that capability is modest. The RX 7400 also wins on power efficiency, with a TDP of 43 W compared to the Arc B770’s 225 W, and a lower suggested power supply requirement of 200 W versus 550 W. For systems with limited power delivery or small form factor constraints, the RX 7400’s single 6-pin connector and low draw are clear advantages. Its higher effective memory speed of 18 Gbps, despite the narrower 128-bit bus, also gives it a win in memory clock terms.

The Intel Arc B770 wins on nearly every raw specification. Its 16 GB of memory, 256-bit bus, and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth are double the RX 7400’s memory capacity and bandwidth. Its shading unit count of 4,096 is more than double the RX 7400’s 1,792, and its TMU and ROP counts are similarly doubled. The Arc B770 also has a larger die at 368 mm², a smaller process node at 5 nm, and higher base and boost clocks. In compute throughput, it leads with 19.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 39.32 TFLOPS FP16, along with higher pixel and texture rates. The Intel card’s PCIe 4.0 x16 interface doubles the lane width of the RX 7400’s x8 connection, and its 32 ray tracing cores exceed the AMD card’s 28.

The specification sheet strongly favors the Arc B770 for high-performance workloads such as 4K gaming, heavy ray tracing, and compute-intensive tasks. The RX 7400’s strengths lie in its low power envelope and its verified, if modest, benchmark presence. The absence of any recorded benchmarks for the Arc B770 means that its theoretical advantages remain unproven in the database, whereas the RX 7400’s scores are documented and comparable to a small set of near-identical rivals. For users prioritizing efficiency and verified results, the RX 7400 is the safer choice. For those who need maximum memory and throughput and are willing to supply 550 W, the Arc B770’s specifications suggest a more powerful card, but the data does not yet confirm that performance.