AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM and the Intel Arc Pro B370. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the wins counters for each side are set to zero. This absence of measured performance data means any comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification fields available in the database.

The most striking contrast appears in raw compute throughput. The AMD part lists FP32 performance at 10.65 TFLOPS, while the Intel part lists 6.144 TFLOPS. That places the Radeon roughly 73% higher in single-precision floating-point work. However, the Intel part flips the situation in half-precision: its FP16 rating is 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, whereas the AMD part lists 10.65 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. In FP16, Intel leads by about 15%.

Pixel and texture rates tell a similar story of divergence. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM records a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 166.4 GTexel/s. The Intel Arc Pro B370 records 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. The AMD card leads in pixel throughput by a factor of roughly 3.5x, and in texture throughput by about 1.7x. These figures suggest the AMD implementation uses a wider memory path and more render output units, which often translates to higher fill-rate-bound performance.

Memory bandwidth separates the two even further. The AMD part uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s. The Intel part uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." No fixed number exists for Intel's bandwidth, so the comparison cannot be quantified, but the qualitative difference is clear: a dedicated GDDR6 interface versus a shared-memory design that depends on the host system's capabilities.

Clock behavior also differs. AMD's base clock is 1330 MHz, boost clock is 2600 MHz, and game clock is 1920 MHz. Intel's base clock is 300 MHz, boost clock is 2400 MHz, and there is no game clock listed. The AMD base clock is over 4x higher than Intel's base clock, though the boost clocks are closer, with AMD ahead by 200 MHz. The large gap at base suggests different power and thermal strategies, likely tied to the Intel part being an integrated graphics processor (IGP) rather than a discrete card.

Where Each One Wins

In FP16 workloads, the Intel Arc Pro B370 holds a clear advantage. Its 12.29 TFLOPS versus AMD's 10.65 TFLOPS means Intel delivers about 15% more half-precision throughput. This could matter for applications that rely heavily on FP16 compute, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or media processing pipelines that use reduced precision.

In FP32 workloads, the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM wins decisively. The 10.65 TFLOPS figure is roughly 73% higher than Intel's 6.144 TFLOPS. Most traditional graphics rendering, physics simulations, and general compute workloads use FP32, so this advantage would likely dominate typical gaming and professional 3D tasks.

For fill-rate-bound scenarios, AMD again leads. The pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s means the Radeon can push over three times as many pixels per second. The texture rate of 166.4 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s also favors AMD by roughly 73%. These metrics matter for high-resolution rendering, heavy texture filtering, and multi-sample anti-aliasing.

The Intel part wins on power efficiency by a wide margin. Its TDP is just 25 W, compared to AMD's 92 W. That difference, 67 W lower for Intel, indicates the Arc Pro B370 is designed for thermally constrained or battery-powered environments. AMD's design, with a dual-slot cooler and a single 8-pin power connector, clearly targets a discrete graphics card form factor with higher performance headroom.

The AMD card also wins on dedicated memory. Having 4 GB of GDDR6 with a fixed 144.0 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance, while Intel's system-shared memory means performance varies with the host platform's memory speed and capacity. No fixed bandwidth number exists for Intel, making this a qualitative win for AMD in consistency.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD uses the Navi 44 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process. Intel uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm Intel process. The process node difference, 4 nm versus 3 nm, suggests Intel has a slight density advantage, though Intel lists transistor count and die size as unknown, so no quantitative comparison is possible.

AMD's chip contains 29,700 million transistors on a 199 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 149.2M per mm². Intel does not disclose these figures. The architectural lineage also differs: AMD's generation is Navi IV (RX 9000), with predecessor Navi III, while Intel's generation is Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake), with predecessor HD Graphics-WM. Both architectures support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility matches.

Core counts differ significantly. AMD lists 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 16 ray tracing cores. Intel lists 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. Intel has 25% more shading units, but AMD has 60% more TMUs, 220% more ROPs, and 60% more ray tracing cores. The shading unit advantage for Intel is offset by far lower ROP and TMU counts, which explains the pixel and texture rate gaps.

Memory architecture reflects the form factor difference. AMD uses a 64-bit bus with GDDR6 and a fixed 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with a bus width listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth as "System Dependent." This means Intel's memory performance is not intrinsic to the GPU but depends on the host system's memory configuration, a major architectural divergence.

Power delivery and cooling also differ. AMD is a dual-slot discrete card with one 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Intel is an IGP with no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and a slot width of "IGP." The TDP figures, 92 W versus 25 W, reflect this: AMD's design allocates far more power budget, while Intel's integrates directly into a processor package.

The release dates differ by about six months. Intel's part released on 2026-01-26, while AMD's released on 2026-07-27. Both are listed as Active in production status. Display outputs also diverge: AMD provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a, while Intel lists "Portable Device Dependent," indicating no fixed output configuration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM lists 10.65 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 lists 6.144 TFLOPS. AMD is approximately 73% higher.

Q: Does the Intel part support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc Pro B370 lists 10 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM lists 16 ray tracing cores.

Q: What type of memory does each GPU use?

A: AMD uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent."

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: AMD has a TDP of 92 W, while Intel has a TDP of 25 W. Intel consumes 67 W less power.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: Intel has 1280 shading units, while AMD has 1024. Intel has 25% more shading units.

Q: Are the API support levels the same?

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

The Verdict

The data shows two products aimed at entirely different roles. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM is a discrete, dual-slot graphics card with dedicated GDDR6 memory, a 92 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested PSU. It leads decisively in FP32 compute, pixel rate, texture rate, and ray tracing core count. For any workload that stresses traditional graphics rendering, fill rate, or single-precision compute, the recorded specifications favor AMD by wide margins: 73% in FP32, 247% in pixel rate, and 73% in texture rate.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 is an integrated GPU with a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, and system-shared memory. It wins in FP16 throughput by 15% and has 25% more shading units. It also uses a 3 nm process versus AMD's 4 nm, though Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size. The lower power envelope and IGP form factor make it suitable for compact, power-constrained systems, but the absence of fixed memory bandwidth means its performance is contingent on the host platform.

For users prioritizing raw graphics performance, dedicated memory bandwidth, and ray tracing capability, the database points to the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM. For users prioritizing power efficiency and half-precision compute, the Intel Arc Pro B370 holds the advantage. The two do not compete in the same performance class; they serve different deployment scenarios, and the specification differences confirm that split.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM | Intel Arc Pro B370 |

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

| Chip | Navi 44 | Panther Lake |

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Xe3-LPG |

| Generation | Navi IV (RX 9000) | Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 29,700 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 199 mm² | unknown |

| Base Clock | 1330 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1920 MHz | null |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 64 | 40 |

| ROPs | 64 | 20 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 16 | 10 |

| FP32 | 10.65 TFLOPS | 6.144 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1) | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 166.4 GPixel/s | 48.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 166.4 GTexel/s | 96.00 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 92 W | 25 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2026-07-27 | 2026-01-26 |

| Predecessor | Navi III | HD Graphics-WM |