AMD Radeon RX 9070 vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

The Intel Arc A350M and AMD Radeon RX 9070 occupy entirely different tiers of the graphics market, and the benchmark data reflects this clearly. The RX 9070 wins both shared tests decisively, yet the Arc A350M holds a higher percentile ranking (70th vs 69th) due to the different benchmark pools each card is tested against. The A350M is an end-of-life, 25 W integrated-class mobile part from 2022, while the RX 9070 is an active, 220 W dual-slot desktop card from 2025. For any user comparing these two, the data presents a straightforward choice: the RX 9070 is the overwhelmingly faster GPU, while the A350M is a legacy low-power option with no performance advantage in any measured metric.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 9070 is the superior graphics processor in every measurable way. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 9070 scores 131,539 against the A350M’s 24,546, a delta of -81.3% for the Intel part. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 9070 scores 58,705 versus 24,747, a -57.8% delta. There are zero benchmark wins for the Arc A350M across the shared tests.

The RX 9070 should be chosen by anyone building a new desktop system or upgrading a gaming rig, as its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, 256-bit bus, and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth provide a modern high-end foundation. The Arc A350M, with its 4 GB memory and 64-bit bus, is a legacy mobile component that is end-of-life; it is only relevant in older laptops or as a low-power integrated solution (25 W TDP, IGP slot width). The A350M’s percentile of 70 versus the RX 9070’s 69 is a statistical artifact of comparison pools, not an indicator of real-world performance equivalence — the RX 9070’s nearest rivals include the RTX 3080 Mobile and RTX 2080 SUPER, while the A350M sits near the RX 590 and GTX 1630.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, so the use-case split is entirely one-sided in terms of raw performance. The RX 9070 dominates in compute workloads, as shown by its OpenCL score being 5.36 times higher than the A350M’s. It also leads in graphics API performance, with its Vulkan score 2.37 times higher.

The Arc A350M’s only advantage lies in its physical profile and power envelope. At 25 W TDP with a portable-device-dependent display output, it is designed for thin-and-light laptops where the 220 W RX 9070 cannot physically exist. The A350M’s production status is end-of-life, meaning it is not a current purchase option for new systems. For gaming, rendering, or any GPU-accelerated task where performance matters, the RX 9070 is the only choice from this data. For ultra-portable, low-power computing in an existing device, the A350M serves a niche the RX 9070 cannot fill.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, process nodes, and architectural generations. The Intel Arc A350M uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist generation (Arc 3 Mobile). It is fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The RX 9070 uses AMD’s Navi 48 chip on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, from the Navi IV (RX 9000) generation. It is built on a more advanced 4 nm TSMC process with 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, for a density of 151.0M per mm² — over three times denser.

Core counts differ substantially. The A350M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 raster operation units, and 6 ray tracing cores. The RX 9070 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 56 RT cores — 4.67 times more shading units, 4.67 times more TMUs, 5.33 times more ROPs, and 9.33 times more RT cores. Neither card lists tensor cores. Clock speeds favor the RX 9070: its base clock is 1330 MHz, boost 2520 MHz, and game clock 2070 MHz, versus the A350M’s 1150 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the RX 9070 at 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) versus the A350M’s 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has an average benchmark score of 24,647, while the AMD Radeon RX 9070 has an average of 23,877. The A350M is higher by 770 points, but this average is based on only two benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan) for the A350M versus ten benchmarks for the RX 9070, which includes lower-scoring Passmark DX tests.

Q: What is the performance difference in Vulkan?

A: The RX 9070 scores 58,705 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the A350M scores 24,747. The RX 9070 leads by 137.1% (the A350M is -57.8% relative to the RX 9070).

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these cards from the same generation?

A: No. The A350M is from Intel’s Alchemist generation (Arc 3 Mobile), released on 2022-03-29. The RX 9070 is from AMD’s Navi IV (RX 9000) generation, released on 2025-03-05. The A350M is end-of-life, while the RX 9070 is active.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 9070 has a pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s, versus the A350M’s 52.80 GPixel/s — a 6.1 times advantage for the AMD card.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The A350M has a 25 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width. The RX 9070 has a 220 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and the manufacturer suggests a 550 W PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers two tests, and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 wins both outright. The largest margin is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 9070 scores 131,539 against the A350M’s 24,546. This is a delta of -81.3% for the Intel part, meaning the RX 9070 delivers 5.36 times the compute performance. This gap reflects the fundamental differences in shading units (3,584 vs 768) and FP32 throughput (36.13 TFLOPS vs 3.379 TFLOPS).

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 9070 scores 58,705 versus the A350M’s 24,747, a -57.8% delta. The RX 9070 is 2.37 times faster here. The narrower relative gap in Vulkan compared to OpenCL suggests the A350M’s Xe-HPG architecture handles the Vulkan API more efficiently relative to its hardware limits, but the absolute difference remains decisive. Notably, the A350M’s Vulkan score (24,747) is nearly identical to its OpenCL score (24,546), while the RX 9070’s Vulkan score (58,705) is less than half its OpenCL score (131,539). This indicates the RX 9070 excels in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads but has a more modest, though still substantial, advantage in graphics-oriented Vulkan tasks.

The RX 9070’s performance context is strong: its nearest rivals include the RTX 3080 Mobile (avg score 23,628, delta 1.1%) and the RTX 2080 SUPER (avg score 24,170, delta -1.2%), placing it in high-end territory. The A350M’s nearest rivals are the RX 590 (avg 24,744, delta -0.4%) and GTX 1630 (avg 24,277, delta 1.5%), indicating it competes with older mid-range desktop parts despite being a low-power mobile chip.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a generational and hierarchical chasm. The RX 9070 uses a 4 nm process versus the A350M’s 6 nm, and packs 53,900 million transistors versus 7,200 million. Die size is 357 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density is 151.0M/mm² versus 45.9M/mm².

Core configurations differ by multiples: 3,584 vs 768 shading units, 224 vs 48 TMUs, 128 vs 24 ROPs, and 56 vs 6 RT cores. Clock speeds favor the RX 9070 across the board: base 1330 MHz vs 1150 MHz, boost 2520 MHz vs 2200 MHz, and memory clock 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps) vs 1750 MHz (14 Gbps). The RX 9070 also has a game clock of 2070 MHz, which the A350M lacks entirely.

Memory is vastly different: 16 GB vs 4 GB, 256-bit vs 64-bit bus, and 644.6 GB/s vs 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. Pixel rate is 322.6 GPixel/s vs 52.80 GPixel/s, texture rate is 564.5 GTexel/s vs 105.6 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 36.13 TFLOPS vs 3.379 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 36.13 TFLOPS (1:1) on the RX 9070 versus 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) on the A350M.

Power and physical dimensions diverge sharply: TDP is 220 W versus 25 W, slot width is dual-slot versus IGP, and the RX 9070 requires two 8-pin connectors with a suggested 550 W PSU, while the A350M has no power connectors listed. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a on the RX 9070 versus “Portable Device Dependent” on the A350M. The RX 9070 has a launch MSRP of 549 USD. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.