AMD Radeon RX 9050 vs Intel Arc B770 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon RX 9050 and the Intel Arc B770. Both entries return zero benchmark scores, zero wins for either side, and an empty head-to-head comparison table. This absence of measured data means a purely empirical comparison based on executed workloads is not possible from the current records. What remains available is the specification-level comparison, which reveals substantial differences in raw compute capacity, memory configuration, and power requirements.

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 carries 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The Intel Arc B770 carries 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 raster output units. These are the largest single-number deltas in the comparison. The Arc B770 has four times the shading units, four times the TMUs, and twice the ROPs. In terms of pixel throughput, the Arc B770 records 307.2 GPixel/s against the RX 9050's 166.4 GPixel/s, a difference of roughly 1.85x. Texture throughput shows an even larger gap: 614.4 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s, a 3.7x advantage for Intel.

Compute throughput follows the same pattern. The RX 9050 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS, approximately 1.85x higher. In FP16 workloads, the gap widens due to architectural differences. The RX 9050 achieves 10.65 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning no dedicated half-precision acceleration. The Arc B770 achieves 39.32 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate. This gives Intel a 3.7x advantage in FP16 throughput, a substantial edge for compute tasks that can utilize half-precision math.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive differentiator. The RX 9050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s. The Arc B770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s. The Intel card offers double the memory capacity and roughly 1.78x the bandwidth. The memory clock rates differ as well: the RX 9050 runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the Arc B770 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Despite the lower memory clock, the wider bus gives Intel the bandwidth advantage.

Ray tracing hardware also differs. The RX 9050 has 16 RT cores, while the Arc B770 has 32 RT cores. No ray tracing benchmark scores exist in the database, so the practical impact of doubling the RT core count cannot be quantified. The data only confirms a 2x hardware count difference.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 uses the Navi 44 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, part of the Navi IV (RX 9000) generation. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 199 mm², and the transistor count is listed at 29,700 million, giving a transistor density of 149.2 million per square millimeter. This is a smaller, denser chip designed for lower power envelopes.

The Intel Arc B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip built on Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 368 mm², nearly double the AMD chip. The transistor count is listed as unknown in the database, and no transistor density figure is recorded. The larger die size combined with a known process node suggests a physically larger implementation, but without transistor counts, density calculations are not possible from the recorded data.

Power consumption marks a clear separation. The RX 9050 has a TDP of 92 W, while the Arc B770 has a TDP of 225 W. The power supply recommendation reflects this: the RX 9050 suggests a 250 W PSU, while the Arc B770 suggests a 550 W PSU. Power connectors differ accordingly. The RX 9050 uses a single 8-pin connector, while the Arc B770 uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector. Both cards are dual-slot designs.

The memory subsystem differs in more than just capacity and bandwidth. The RX 9050 uses a 128-bit memory bus, while the Arc B770 uses a 256-bit bus. The RX 9050's memory runs at a higher effective data rate (18 Gbps versus 16 Gbps), but the narrower bus limits total bandwidth. The Arc B770's wider bus more than compensates for its slightly lower memory clock.

The PCIe interface also differs. The RX 9050 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc B770 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both are x16 electrical connections, but the newer revision on the AMD card doubles the per-lane bandwidth potential. This could matter for data transfer rates in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though no benchmark data confirms a real-world difference.

The FP16 execution ratio is a notable architectural split. The RX 9050 executes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning each FP32 core handles FP16 at the same rate. The Arc B770 executes FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can process twice as many FP16 operations per clock as FP32 operations. This is a clear architectural difference that explains the 3.7x FP16 throughput gap beyond the raw shading unit count difference.

The Verdict

The data points to two different design goals. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 is a lower-power, smaller-die GPU with 8 GB of memory and a 92 W TDP. It uses a 4 nm process, has a 199 mm² die, and draws from a 250 W PSU recommendation. The Intel Arc B770 is a larger, higher-power GPU with 16 GB of memory and a 225 W TDP. It uses a 5 nm process, has a 368 mm² die, and draws from a 550 W PSU recommendation.

For raw compute throughput, the Arc B770 dominates every recorded metric. It has 4x the shading units, 4x the TMUs, 2x the ROPs, 2x the RT cores, 1.85x the FP32 TFLOPS, 3.7x the FP16 TFLOPS, 1.85x the pixel rate, 3.7x the texture rate, 1.78x the memory bandwidth, and 2x the memory capacity. In every performance-related specification recorded, the Intel card is ahead.

For efficiency, the RX 9050 takes the lead. It delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP32 within a 92 W TDP, while the Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS FP32 within a 225 W TDP. The AMD card achieves roughly 115.8 GFLOPS per watt, while the Intel card achieves roughly 87.4 GFLOPS per watt, based on the recorded TDP and FP32 figures. The RX 9050 also uses a smaller die (199 mm² versus 368 mm²) and a more advanced process node (4 nm versus 5 nm), which aligns with its lower power draw.

The choice between the two depends on the workload requirements. The Arc B770 offers substantially more compute resources, double the memory capacity, and double the memory bandwidth. It is positioned for tasks that demand high throughput in FP32 or FP16, larger working sets, and higher resolution textures. The RX 9050 offers a lower power draw, a smaller physical chip, and a newer PCIe revision. It is positioned for power-constrained environments or systems where the 92 W TDP and 250 W PSU recommendation fit the build.

Both cards share identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has a recorded successor, and both have production status listed as active or null (the RX 9050 is Active, the Arc B770 has no recorded status). Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both, placing them at the median of the database's GPU distribution. Without benchmark scores, this percentile is uniform across both entries and does not differentiate them.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two entries:

• Chip: Navi 44 (AMD) versus BMG-G31 (Intel)
• Architecture: RDNA 4.0 versus Xe2-HPG
• Generation: Navi IV (RX 9000) versus Battlemage (Arc 7)
• Process node: 4 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: 29,700 million versus unknown
• Die size: 199 mm² versus 368 mm²
• Transistor density: 149.2M / mm² versus null
• Base clock: 1330 MHz versus 2100 MHz
• Boost clock: 2600 MHz versus 2400 MHz
• Game clock: 1920 MHz versus null
• Memory clock: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 2000 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: 1024 versus 4096
• TMUs: 64 versus 256
• ROPs: 64 versus 128
• RT cores: 16 versus 32
• Pixel rate: 166.4 GPixel/s versus 307.2 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 166.4 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 10.65 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS
• FP16: 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 92 W versus 225 W
• Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 550 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a versus 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1
• Release date: 2026-07-27 versus 2025-12-31
• Predecessor: Navi III versus Alchemist
• Production status: Active versus null

Fields that match include: manufacturer (both listed, though different companies), slot width (Dual-slot for both), API support (identical across DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan), and the lack of a launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc B770 records 19.66 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon RX 9050 records 10.65 TFLOPS. The Arc B770 is approximately 1.85x higher.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The Intel Arc B770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 9050 delivers 288.0 GB/s, while the Arc B770 delivers 512.0 GB/s. The Intel card has roughly 1.78x the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RX 9050 has a 92 W TDP and suggests a 250 W PSU. The Arc B770 has a 225 W TDP and suggests a 550 W PSU. The AMD card uses one 8-pin connector; the Intel card uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc B770 has 32 RT cores. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 has 16 RT cores, exactly half the count.

Q: Are the API feature sets the same?

A: Yes. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. No differences are recorded in API support.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The RX 9050 uses a 4 nm TSMC process. The Arc B770 uses a 5 nm TSMC process. The die sizes are 199 mm² and 368 mm² respectively.