GPU Comparison

The Intel Arc A730M and AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE target different corners of the GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects that split clearly. The AMD card wins both head-to-head tests, but the Intel part is a mobile IGP with a much lower power envelope, while the AMD is an active dual-slot desktop card. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, yet the architectural story is more nuanced than a simple win/loss tally.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE is the outright performance winner in every benchmark recorded. In the demanding 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 2336 against the Intel Arc A730M’s 1732, a decisive 25.9% advantage. This is a synthetic DirectX 12 workload that stresses raw throughput, and the AMD card’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture pay off handsomely. The Geekbench OpenCL result tells the same story: 83109 for AMD versus 70352 for Intel, a 15.3% lead. For any user prioritizing compute or gaming performance, the RX 7650 GRE is the clear choice.

The Intel Arc A730M, however, wins in the efficiency and form-factor arena. Its TDP is 80 W, less than half of the RX 7650 GRE’s 170 W. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), meaning it is designed to be soldered onto a motherboard, whereas the AMD card is a dual-slot expansion card measuring 204 mm in length. The Intel part draws significantly less power and requires no auxiliary power connector, while the AMD card needs a single 8-pin connector and a 450 W power supply. For a thin-and-light laptop or a compact all-in-one system, the Arc A730M’s low power draw is its primary winning attribute. The data shows it is end-of-life, but its niche remains valid for portable systems where performance-per-watt matters more than absolute frame rates.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel’s Arc A730M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, using the DG2-512 chip fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 21,700 million transistors onto a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4 million per square millimeter. AMD’s RX 7650 GRE uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, also on a 6 nm TSMC process, but with only 13,300 million transistors on a much smaller 204 mm² die. This gives AMD a higher density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter, indicating a more compact and efficient design.

The compute resources differ significantly. Intel fields 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation pipelines. AMD counters with 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Despite having fewer of these traditional units, AMD achieves higher raw throughput thanks to much higher clocks: the RX 7650 GRE boosts to 2695 MHz with a game clock of 2350 MHz, versus Intel’s 2050 MHz boost. This clock advantage drives AMD’s FP32 performance to 22.08 TFLOPS, compared to Intel’s 12.60 TFLOPS. The FP16 numbers are telling: AMD delivers 22.08 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while Intel reaches 25.19 TFLOPS but only at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is halved in practice.

Memory configurations also diverge. Intel provides 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD offers 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, resulting in 288.0 GB/s. The Intel card has a 25% memory capacity advantage and 16.7% more bandwidth, which could benefit workloads with large datasets. Ray tracing hardware differs as well: Intel has 24 RT cores, while AMD has 32, suggesting AMD may have more ray tracing throughput per clock, though the data does not include a dedicated RT benchmark. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test is the most significant differentiator. AMD’s RX 7650 GRE scores 2336, which is 25.9% higher than Intel’s 1732. This is a substantial gap that reflects the AMD card’s higher FP32 throughput and clock speeds. In real-world terms, this delta suggests the AMD card can handle more complex geometry and shading workloads without dropping frames. The Intel part’s score of 1732 places it near rivals like the NVIDIA RTX 5090 Mobile (which scores 45152 on average, but that is a different metric), while the AMD card’s score of 2336 aligns with desktop-class performance.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a narrower but still decisive margin. AMD scores 83109, which is 15.3% ahead of Intel’s 70352. This test is more compute-oriented and less dependent on memory bandwidth, so the Intel card’s larger 12 GB frame buffer does not help it close the gap. Interestingly, the Intel Arc A730M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 64693, a metric that has no direct AMD counterpart in the data. This suggests the Intel card may perform relatively better in Vulkan-based workloads, though without a head-to-head Vulkan result, this remains speculative.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy. AMD’s RX 7650 GRE has an average score of 42723 across all its benchmarks, while Intel’s Arc A730M averages 45592. This puts the AMD card in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (which scores 43223, a -1.2% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (43262, -1.2%). The Intel card sits at the 84th percentile, with rivals like the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45384, +0.5%) and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45972, -0.8%). Notably, the Intel part has a higher percentile ranking despite losing both head-to-head tests, because its average score benefits from the Vulkan benchmark that AMD lacks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in DirectX 12 gaming?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE is significantly faster. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 2336 versus Intel’s 1732, a 25.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A730M have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The Intel card has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s. The AMD card has 8 GB on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc A730M has a TDP of 80 W, while the AMD RX 7650 GRE has a TDP of 170 W. The AMD card also requires a 450 W power supply and a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in compute performance?

A: No. The AMD card delivers 22.08 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 75% higher than Intel’s 12.60 TFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL, AMD scores 83109 versus Intel’s 70352.

Q: Is the Intel card still being produced?

A: The data lists the Intel Arc A730M as end-of-life, while the AMD RX 7650 GRE is marked as active. The AMD card was released on 2025-02-06.

Q: Which card has a better percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A730M ranks in the 84th percentile, while the AMD RX 7650 GRE ranks in the 83rd. Despite this, the AMD card wins both head-to-head benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice for different use cases. For a desktop user building a gaming or compute rig, the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE is the superior performer. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks with margins of 25.9% and 15.3%, delivers higher FP32 throughput, and has a more efficient transistor density. Its active production status and dual-slot form factor make it a practical, available option. The data shows its nearest rivals are high-end NVIDIA parts like the RTX 4070 SUPER, which it trails by only 1.2%, placing it in solid mid-range desktop territory.

For a laptop or compact system builder prioritizing power efficiency, the Intel Arc A730M is the logical pick, despite its performance deficit. Its 80 W TDP is less than half of the AMD card’s, and its IGP form factor eliminates the need for discrete power connectors. The 12 GB memory capacity is also a notable advantage for workloads that exceed 8 GB. However, its end-of-life status and 25.9% performance gap in the primary gaming benchmark make it a difficult recommendation for anyone who can accommodate a discrete card. The benchmark results indicate that if raw performance is the goal, the AMD card is the only reasonable choice; if the system must be thin and power-sipping, the Intel part offers a viable, if slower, alternative.