AMD Radeon RX 9050 vs Intel Arc A570M Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 9050 vs Intel Arc A570M

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single recorded benchmark score for the Intel Arc A570M, a Geekbench OpenCL result of 58,239 points. This places the Arc A570M at the 88th percentile among all GPUs in the database, a strong position that indicates the card outperforms the vast majority of recorded graphics hardware. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 has no benchmark scores recorded in the database, so direct numerical comparison between the two cards is not possible from the available data. The RX 9050 sits at the 50th percentile across all GPUs, though this figure is not derived from an average benchmark score but rather reflects its position in the overall distribution.

The Intel Arc A570M's nearest rivals in the database provide useful context for interpreting its score. The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT averages 58,392 points, a delta of -0.3% relative to the Arc A570M, meaning the Arc trails that high-end desktop card by a negligible margin. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM averages 58,085 points, a delta of +0.3%, placing the Arc A570M slightly ahead. The NVIDIA P102-100 averages 58,528 points, a delta of -0.5%, and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 averages 58,657 points, a delta of -0.7%. These deltas confirm that the Arc A570M's performance clusters tightly with a group of mid-range to upper-mid-range cards, with all four rivals within one percentage point of its score. The data shows a remarkably dense field at this performance tier, where the difference between the fastest and slowest recorded cards in this group is under 1%.

Because the RX 9050 lacks any benchmark entries, the head-to-head comparison must rely on architectural and specification differences rather than measured performance. The RX 9050 does not have a benchmark score, an average benchmark score, or rival data to draw upon. The Arc A570M, by contrast, has a verified score that anchors it firmly in the 88th percentile. Any analysis of relative performance between these two cards must therefore be framed around what the specifications indicate rather than what the benchmarks show.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 uses the Navi 44 chip built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, a 4 nm design fabricated by TSMC. The Intel Arc A570M uses the DG2-256 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, a 6 nm design also fabricated by TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 6 nm translates to a substantial difference in transistor density. The RX 9050 packs 29,700 million transistors onto a 199 mm² die, yielding a density of 149.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Arc A570M contains 11,500 million transistors on a larger 269 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 42.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 9050 achieves more than three times the transistor density of the Arc A570M, which reflects the generational leap in manufacturing technology.

The RX 9050 belongs to the Navi IV generation, specifically the RX 9000 series, with its predecessor being Navi III. The Arc A570M belongs to the Alchemist generation, specifically the Arc 5 Mobile tier, and has no recorded predecessor. The RX 9050 uses PCIe 5.0 x16 as its bus interface, while the Arc A570M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. This difference halves the available bus lanes for the Intel card and drops the interface generation by one. The RX 9050 also draws more power, with a TDP of 92 W compared to 75 W for the Arc A570M, and requires a dedicated 1x 8-pin power connector, whereas the Arc A570M is an integrated graphics processor with no power connector listed and no suggested PSU rating.

The memory subsystems differ in bandwidth despite identical capacity and type. Both cards use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The RX 9050 runs its memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed, producing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A570M runs its memory at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed, producing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 9050 delivers 28.6% more memory bandwidth, a meaningful advantage in texture-heavy and high-resolution workloads.

The compute and rendering pipelines diverge sharply in configuration. The RX 9050 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The Arc A570M has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The Intel card doubles the shading units and texture mapping units, yet its FP32 throughput is only half of the AMD card's. The RX 9050 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc A570M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS. Both cards feature 16 ray tracing cores. The FP16 figures are equal at 10.65 TFLOPS, but the ratios differ: the RX 9050 achieves FP16 at 1:1 with its FP32 rate, while the Arc A570M uses a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate.

The pixel rates differ as a result of clock speeds. The RX 9050 has a base clock of 1330 MHz, a boost clock of 2600 MHz, and a game clock of 1920 MHz. The Arc A570M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz, with no game clock recorded. These clocks produce a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s for the RX 9050 versus 83.20 GPixel/s for the Arc A570M, exactly half. The texture rates are identical at 166.4 GTexel/s for both cards, which is notable given the Arc's larger TMU count but lower clock speeds.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 wins on raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and pixel fill rate. Its FP32 performance of 10.65 TFLOPS doubles the Arc A570M's 5.325 TFLOPS, which suggests a substantial advantage in general-purpose compute and shader-intensive workloads. The RX 9050's memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s exceeds the Arc's 224.0 GB/s, which benefits data-heavy operations like large texture streaming and high-resolution rendering. The pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s versus 83.20 GPixel/s indicates the RX 9050 can drive more pixels per second, a factor that matters for high refresh rate output and multi-display configurations.

The Intel Arc A570M wins on transistor efficiency in a different sense. Its 75 W TDP is lower than the RX 9050's 92 W, and it requires no external power connector, making it suitable for integrated or mobile implementations where power delivery is constrained. The Arc A570M also has double the shading units and texture mapping units, which, despite the lower clock speeds, may provide advantages in workloads that scale well with parallel execution units rather than raw clock speed. The Arc's FP16 performance matches the RX 9050 at 10.65 TFLOPS, so applications using half-precision arithmetic see no disadvantage on that front.

The Arc A570M's benchmark presence is its strongest win. It has a recorded score of 58,239 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it at the 88th percentile, and it outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM by 0.3% while trailing the RX 6950 XT by only 0.3%. The RX 9050 has no benchmark data, so the Arc A570M is the only card of the two with verified measured performance in the database. The Arc also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which, while less capable than the RX 9050's PCIe 5.0 x16, remains compatible with a wide range of existing platforms.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, exactly double the Intel Arc A570M's 5.325 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The RX 9050 provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Arc A570M provides 224.0 GB/s. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the Intel Arc A570M's recorded benchmark score?

A: The Arc A570M scores 58,239 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it at the 88th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Arc A570M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It trails the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT by 0.3%, leads the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM by 0.3%, trails the NVIDIA P102-100 by 0.5%, and trails the AMD Radeon PRO V710 by 0.7%.

Q: What process nodes do the two cards use?

A: The RX 9050 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC with 29,700 million transistors on a 199 mm² die. The Arc A570M uses a 6 nm process from TSMC with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die.

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.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split between the two cards. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 is the more capable part on paper across nearly every compute and memory metric. Its FP32 throughput of 10.65 TFLOPS doubles the Arc A570M, its memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s exceeds the Arc's 224.0 GB/s, and its pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s doubles the Arc's 83.20 GPixel/s. The RX 9050 also uses a smaller 4 nm process with more than triple the transistor density, a newer PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, and a higher 92 W TDP that reflects its greater performance ceiling.

The Intel Arc A570M is the only card with measured benchmark data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 58,239 at the 88th percentile shows it performs within 1% of cards like the RX 6950 XT and RX 5600 OEM, which puts it in a respectable mid-range tier. However, the RX 9050's specifications suggest it should outperform the Arc A570M significantly in most workloads, particularly those that stress FP32 compute and memory bandwidth. The Arc A570M's advantages are limited to its lower 75 W TDP, its doubled shading unit count, and its equal FP16 throughput. Users who prioritize verified performance and low power draw may find the Arc A570M adequate, but the RX 9050's architectural advantages in transistor density, clock speeds, and memory bandwidth position it as the stronger card for demanding graphics workloads. The absence of RX 9050 benchmark data means its real-world performance remains unverified in the database, but the specification sheet points decisively in its favor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 9050 | Intel Arc A570M |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Navi IV (RX 9000) | Alchemist (Arc 5 Mobile) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 29,700 million | 11,500 million |

| Die Size | 199 mm² | 269 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 149.2M / mm² | 42.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1330 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1920 MHz | None recorded |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 2048 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 64 | 128 |

| Raster Operation Units | 64 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 166.4 GPixel/s | 83.20 GPixel/s |

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

| FP32 Performance | 10.65 TFLOPS | 5.325 TFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 92 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

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

| Release Date | 2026-07-27 | 2023-07-31 |