AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM and the Intel Arc A380M. Both entries carry an average benchmark score of zero, and the wins tally for each side is zero. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, placing them at the same relative position in the database distribution despite their very different specifications.

The absence of measured scores means the comparison must rely on the architectural and specification data recorded for each product. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc A380M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at roughly 2.6 times the raw single-precision throughput of the Intel part, a substantial margin that would likely translate into significant performance differences in compute-heavy workloads.

Memory bandwidth also favors the AMD product, with 144.0 GB/s available from its 64-bit GDDR6 interface, compared to 186.0 GB/s from the Intel product's 96-bit bus. Interestingly, the Intel part has the higher bandwidth figure, so the AMD advantage in FP32 is not mirrored in memory throughput. The Intel Arc A380M also carries a larger memory pool at 6 GB versus 4 GB on the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM.

Pixel fill rate shows a clear AMD advantage: 166.4 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part. Texture fill rate is also higher on the AMD side at 166.4 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the AMD GPU would handle rasterization-heavy scenes more effectively, while the Intel part's narrower gap in texture rate indicates a more balanced but lower overall throughput.

The Intel Arc A380M offers a higher FP16 rate of 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) compared to its FP32 rate, whereas the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM maintains a 1:1 ratio at 10.65 TFLOPS for both FP16 and FP32. In workloads that can use reduced precision, the AMD part still leads, but the Intel architecture's dedicated FP16 path shows a deliberate design choice for such tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM has a boost clock of 2600 MHz, which is higher than the Intel Arc A380M's boost clock of 2000 MHz.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Intel Arc A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM has a TDP of 92 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, with a single 8-pin power connector. The Intel Arc A380M has a TDP of 35 W and no recorded power connector or suggested PSU, as it uses an MXM module form factor.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM has 16 ray tracing cores, double the 8 ray tracing cores found on the Intel Arc A380M.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API features?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Arc A380M has a higher memory bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s, compared to 144.0 GB/s for the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM, despite the AMD card having a faster memory clock of 2250 MHz versus 1937 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM uses the Navi 44 chip built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc A380M uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 6 nm process. The process node difference gives the AMD part a density advantage: 149.2 million transistors per square millimeter versus 45.9 million for the Intel chip.

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The AMD chip integrates 29,700 million transistors on a 199 mm² die, while the Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The larger transistor budget on the AMD side enables more compute resources, including 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Intel part also has 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs, but only 32 ROPs, which explains the large difference in pixel fill rate.

Ray tracing hardware differs as well. The AMD GPU includes 16 RT cores, while the Intel GPU has 8. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, so the RT core count difference would manifest in ray-traced workloads where the AMD part has double the dedicated hardware.

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM belongs to the Navi IV (RX 9000) generation, with a predecessor listed as Navi III. The Intel Arc A380M is part of the Alchemist generation, specifically Arc 3 Mobile, with no predecessor recorded. The AMD card is a desktop OEM product with a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel card is a mobile MXM module using the MXM-A (3.1) interface.

Display outputs also reflect their different target platforms. The AMD card provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a outputs, suitable for desktop use. The Intel Arc A380M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the interface is determined by the host laptop or mobile device rather than the GPU itself.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM uses a 4 nm process, while the Intel Arc A380M uses a 6 nm process. Transistor count is 29,700 million for the AMD chip versus 7,200 million for the Intel chip. Die size measures 199 mm² for AMD and 157 mm² for Intel, with transistor density at 149.2M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The AMD base clock is 1330 MHz, lower than the Intel base clock of 1550 MHz. However, the AMD boost clock reaches 2600 MHz, exceeding the Intel boost clock of 2000 MHz. The AMD game clock is recorded at 1920 MHz, while the Intel card has no game clock listed. Memory clocks differ: AMD runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while Intel runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration varies. The AMD card has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card has 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The wider bus on the Intel part compensates for its lower memory clock.

Compute resources differ in ROP and RT core counts. Both have 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs, but the AMD card has 64 ROPs versus 32 on the Intel card, and 16 RT cores versus 8. Pixel rate is 166.4 GPixel/s for AMD and 64.00 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 166.4 GTexel/s for AMD and 128.0 GTexel/s for Intel.

FP32 throughput is 10.65 TFLOPS for AMD and 4.096 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16 throughput is 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1) for AMD and 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel. Power draw differs substantially: the AMD card has a TDP of 92 W with a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Intel card has a TDP of 35 W with no suggested PSU recorded.

Form factor and interface differ completely. The AMD card is dual-slot with a 1x 8-pin power connector and PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The Intel card is an MXM module with no power connector listed and uses the MXM-A (3.1) bus interface. Release dates are far apart: the AMD card launched on 2026-07-27, while the Intel card launched on 2023-01-23.

The Verdict

The data indicates two GPUs designed for different platforms and power envelopes. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM targets desktop OEM systems with a 92 W TDP, PCIe 5.0 connectivity, and standard display outputs. The Intel Arc A380M targets mobile devices as an MXM module with a 35 W TDP, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or modular mobile workstations.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the AMD part delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP32, more than double the Intel part's 4.096 TFLOPS. The AMD card also leads in pixel fill rate (166.4 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s) and ray tracing core count (16 versus 8), indicating stronger performance in graphics-intensive and RT-enabled workloads.

The Intel Arc A380M counters with a larger memory pool of 6 GB versus 4 GB, and higher memory bandwidth at 186.0 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s. In scenarios where memory capacity or bandwidth is the limiting factor, such as large texture sets or data-heavy compute tasks, the Intel part could hold an advantage despite its lower compute throughput.

Power consumption favors the Intel card significantly. At 35 W, it draws less than half the power of the AMD card's 92 W. For battery-powered devices or systems with tight thermal budgets, the Intel Arc A380M is the more efficient choice. The AMD card requires a 250 W suggested PSU, typical of desktop configurations, while the Intel card has no such requirement due to its mobile integration.

The release timeline shows the Intel card launched in January 2023, while the AMD card arrived in July 2026. The AMD part belongs to the newer Navi IV generation, succeeding Navi III, whereas the Intel part's Alchemist generation has no recorded predecessor. The production status for both is listed as Active, indicating both remain available in the database.

Users building or upgrading a desktop OEM system with PCIe 5.0 support and needing higher compute and rasterization performance would select the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM. Users designing or servicing a mobile platform that requires an MXM module with lower power draw and more memory would choose the Intel Arc A380M. The choice hinges on platform compatibility and the relative importance of compute throughput versus memory capacity and power efficiency, as the recorded data shows no overlapping benchmark scores to compare actual performance directly.