AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE vs Intel Arc A380E x2 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE vs Intel Arc A380E x2 is a comparison between two graphics cards that occupy vastly different tiers of the market. The RX 9070 GRE is an active, high-end desktop part from AMD’s Radeon RX 9000 series, while the Arc A380E x2 is an end-of-life, compact industrial card from Intel’s Alchemist generation. The recorded data shows a massive performance gap, but the comparison remains useful for understanding how the specifications and benchmark scores translate into real-world use cases. The RX 9070 GRE holds a percentile rank of 87 among all GPUs, while the Arc A380E x2 sits at the 50th percentile, meaning the AMD card outperforms the vast majority of the database’s tested hardware, whereas the Intel card is squarely mid-pack.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table for these two cards is empty, and no direct win counts are recorded for either side. However, the available benchmark data for the RX 9070 GRE provides a clear picture of its performance level. The card scores 5,424 points in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, a demanding modern workload that stresses ray tracing and DirectX 12 features. In Geekbench OpenCL, it produces a score of 109,309, which reflects strong raw compute throughput. The Arc A380E x2 has no recorded benchmarks in the database, so its performance must be inferred from its architecture and specification sheet rather than from direct measurements.

The nearest rivals for the RX 9070 GRE, ranked by average benchmark score, include the Intel Arc A580 at 57,756 (0.7% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085 (1.2% lower), the Intel Arc A570M at 58,239 (1.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 (1.8% lower). This places the RX 9070 GRE’s average benchmark score of 57,367 slightly below all four of these cards, with the smallest deficit being only 0.7% against the Arc A580. The data indicates that while the RX 9070 GRE is a strong performer in specific tests, its overall average score is marginally behind its closest competitors, suggesting a card that trades blows with the previous generation’s high-end offerings rather than decisively beating them.

The Arc A380E x2 has no nearest rivals listed, and its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. This absence of data means the database does not currently hold enough information to compare it against other cards numerically. What is clear from the specification sheet is that its compute capabilities are far lower: the RX 9070 GRE delivers 34.28 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc A380E x2 manages only 4.096 TFLOPS. That is an 8.37x difference in raw shader throughput, which directly explains why the AMD card scores so much higher in compute-heavy benchmarks like Geekbench OpenCL.

Architecture Differences

The RX 9070 GRE uses AMD’s RDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a TSMC 4 nm process node, with a chip codenamed Navi 48. The Arc A380E x2 uses Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture, built on a TSMC 6 nm process node, with a DG2-128 chip. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 6 nm, which contributes to the RX 9070 GRE’s higher transistor density of 151.0 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to 45.9 million for the Arc A380E x2. The RX 9070 GRE packs 53,900 million transistors onto a 357 mm² die, while the Arc A380E x2 has just 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. This means the AMD card uses 7.5x more transistors and has a die that is over twice as large.

The RX 9070 GRE belongs to the Navi IV generation (RX 9000 series), while the Arc A380E x2 is part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). The RX 9070 GRE’s predecessor is Navi III, while the Arc A380E x2’s predecessor is Xe Graphics, and its successor is Battlemage. The RX 9070 GRE is still in active production, whereas the Arc A380E x2 is marked as end-of-life. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so software feature parity is high, but the underlying hardware capabilities differ drastically.

The RX 9070 GRE has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units, along with 48 ray tracing cores. The Arc A380E x2 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with only 8 ray tracing cores. The AMD card also has a much higher pixel rate of 267.8 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the Intel card, and a texture rate of 535.7 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. The FP16 performance tells a different story: the RX 9070 GRE achieves 34.28 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Arc A380E x2 achieves 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 rate. This suggests the Intel card is optimized for workloads that benefit from reduced precision, but its absolute numbers remain far lower.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the RX 9070 GRE is the clear choice for any workload that demands high frame rates or heavy compute. Its 34.28 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth place it in a completely different performance class than the Arc A380E x2, which offers 4.096 TFLOPS, 6 GB of memory, and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 9070 GRE also supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc A380E x2 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which affects data transfer rates for CPU-bound tasks. The AMD card’s 87th percentile ranking confirms that it sits among the top GPUs in the database, while the Intel card’s 50th percentile indicates average performance.

The Arc A380E x2 does have advantages in specific areas. It is a single-slot card with a length of 265 mm, a height of 127 mm, and a width of 20 mm, making it far more compact than the dual-slot RX 9070 GRE. It also draws 130 W of power versus 220 W for the AMD card, and it requires only a single 6-pin power connector, while the RX 9070 GRE needs two 8-pin connectors. The Intel card offers 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, which is an unusual configuration suited for multi-display setups, whereas the RX 9070 GRE has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a. For an industrial or embedded application where space, power, and display count are priorities, the Arc A380E x2 has a purpose. For gaming or general compute, the RX 9070 GRE is unquestionably the stronger product.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 9070 GRE than the Arc A380E x2 in raw compute?

A: The RX 9070 GRE delivers 34.28 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS, which is an 8.37x difference in favor of the AMD card.

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two cards?

A: The RX 9070 GRE has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A380E x2 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, providing 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better ray tracing hardware?

A: The RX 9070 GRE has 48 ray tracing cores, while the Arc A380E x2 has only 8 ray tracing cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, which includes ray tracing features.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The RX 9070 GRE has a TDP of 220 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The Arc A380E x2 has a TDP of 130 W, requires a single 6-pin connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, the RX 9070 GRE is listed as active in production, while the Arc A380E x2 is marked as end-of-life.

Q: What is the physical size difference between the two cards?

A: The Arc A380E x2 is a single-slot card measuring 265 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The RX 9070 GRE is a dual-slot card, but its length, height, and width are not recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 9070 GRE wins decisively in any performance-oriented scenario. Its 34.28 TFLOPS FP32 compute, 267.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 535.7 GTexel/s texture rate indicate a card designed for high-resolution gaming, 3D rendering, and compute-heavy tasks. The 12 GB memory buffer and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth provide ample headroom for modern game assets and large datasets. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface ensures maximum bandwidth for data transfer between CPU and GPU. The 87th percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms that it outperforms the vast majority of tested hardware, making it a suitable choice for a high-end desktop build.

The Arc A380E x2 wins in scenarios where physical footprint, power draw, and display output count are more important than raw performance. Its single-slot design and compact dimensions allow installation in small form factor or industrial systems. The 130 W TDP and single 6-pin power connector make it easy to integrate into low-power builds. The 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs are unique, allowing the card to drive up to eight displays simultaneously, which is useful for digital signage or multi-monitor surveillance systems. Its 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 128.0 GTexel/s texture rate are sufficient for basic 2D rendering and light 3D workloads, but they are not competitive with the RX 9070 GRE’s capabilities.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the RX 9070 GRE and Arc A380E x2:

• Architecture: RDNA 4.0 vs Xe-HPG
• Process Node: 4 nm vs 6 nm
• Transistors: 53,900 million vs 7,200 million
• Die Size: 357 mm² vs 157 mm²
• Transistor Density: 151.0M / mm² vs 45.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1420 MHz vs 2000 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2790 MHz vs 2000 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) vs 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 12 GB vs 6 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 192 bit vs 96 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 432.0 GB/s vs 186.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 3072 vs 1024
• TMUs: 192 vs 64
• ROPs: 96 vs 32
• Ray Tracing Cores: 48 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 267.8 GPixel/s vs 64.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 535.7 GTexel/s vs 128.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 34.28 TFLOPS vs 4.096 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 34.28 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 220 W vs 130 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs Single-slot
• Power Connectors: 2x 8-pin vs 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs 300 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a vs 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0
• Dimensions: Not recorded vs 265 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width
• Production Status: Active vs End-of-life
• Release Date: 2025-05-07 vs 2024-03-31