AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Arc A350M wins both recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 24,546 against 19,549 for the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, a 25.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan it scores 24,747 versus 22,757, an 8.7% lead.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Arc A350M sits near the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744 average score, 0.4% ahead) and NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763, 0.5% ahead). The RX Vega M GL sits near the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21,237, 0.4% behind) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 (21,035, 0.6% ahead).

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: Both have 4 GB of memory, but the Arc A350M uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX Vega M GL uses HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus with 179.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The Arc A350M has a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz. The RX Vega M GL has a base clock of 931 MHz and a boost of 1011 MHz. The Arc A350M also has a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), versus 700 MHz (1400 Mbps effective) for the AMD part.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Arc A350M is built on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the RX Vega M GL uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. The Arc chip packs 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, while the AMD chip has 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Arc A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Arc part has a newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A350M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm TSMC process. It integrates 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The GPU belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation and includes dedicated ray tracing cores, with 6 RT cores present. Its compute layout consists of 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 22 chip, produced on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. It contains 5,000 million transistors on a larger 208 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 24.0 million per mm². This part belongs to the Vega (Vega M) generation and has no ray tracing cores. It provides 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

The architectural gap is substantial. The Arc A350M uses a much denser, modern process node, enabling higher clock speeds (1150 MHz base, 2200 MHz boost) despite a lower TDP of 25 W. The RX Vega M GL runs at 931 MHz base and 1011 MHz boost, with a TDP of 65 W. The Intel part also features a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 6.758 TFLOPS FP16 versus 3.379 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD part has a 1:1 FP16 ratio, meaning both FP16 and FP32 run at 2.588 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Arc A350M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, achieving 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX Vega M GL uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, achieving 179.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part has 60% more memory bandwidth, but the Intel part has a much higher pixel rate (52.80 GPixel/s versus 32.35 GPixel/s) and texture rate (105.6 GTexel/s versus 80.88 GTexel/s).

The Arc A350M supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX Vega M GL is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no discrete bus interface. Both are end-of-life products, but the Arc A350M was released on 2022-03-29, while the RX Vega M GL came out on 2018-01-31. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part tops out at DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy in favor of the Intel Arc A350M across both available tests.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A350M scores 24,546, which is 25.6% higher than the RX Vega M GL's 19,549. This is a decisive margin, reflecting the Intel part's higher clock speeds, newer architecture, and superior compute throughput. The Arc A350M's FP32 performance of 3.379 TFLOPS is 30.6% higher than the AMD part's 2.588 TFLOPS, which aligns with the observed benchmark delta.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows but remains significant. The Arc A350M scores 24,747, while the RX Vega M GL scores 22,757, a delta of 8.7%. The Vulkan test likely benefits the AMD part due to its higher memory bandwidth (179.2 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s), which can help with certain workloads. Still, the Intel part leads in both API tests.

The average benchmark score across all tests for the Arc A350M is 24,647, placing it in the 70th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RX Vega M GL has an average score of 21,153, placing it in the 66th percentile. The percentile difference of 4 points is modest, but the actual score gap is substantial.

The Arc A350M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 590, which averages 24,744, a 0.4% difference. The RX Vega M GL's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8970M at 21,237, a 0.4% difference. This means the Arc A350M competes with desktop-class GPUs from a few generations back, while the RX Vega M GL sits near older mobile or mid-range parts.

The Intel part wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2 to 0 advantage in the recorded comparisons. No test in the database favors the AMD part. The largest single win for the Arc A350M is the OpenCL test at 25.6%, while its smallest win is Vulkan at 8.7%. The data indicates that the Arc A350M offers a consistent performance uplift across different compute APIs.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Arc A350M is the superior GPU. It wins both available benchmarks, has a higher average score (24,647 versus 21,153), and occupies a higher percentile rank (70th versus 66th). The performance advantage is most pronounced in OpenCL, where the Arc A350M leads by 25.6%, and remains solid in Vulkan at 8.7%.

The RX Vega M GL does have advantages in specific hardware characteristics. Its memory bandwidth is 179.2 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s, which is a 60% advantage. It also has more shading units (1,280 versus 768), more TMUs (80 versus 48), and more ROPs (32 versus 24). However, these hardware advantages do not translate into benchmark victories. The Arc A350M's much higher clock speeds (2200 MHz boost versus 1011 MHz boost) and newer architecture overcome the AMD part's wider memory bus and higher core count.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, the Arc A350M is the clear choice. The data shows it beats the RX Vega M GL by double digits in one test and by nearly 9% in the other. The Intel part also supports newer APIs, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, which may offer better long-term compatibility with modern software.

The RX Vega M GL remains relevant only in scenarios where its higher memory bandwidth could matter, but the recorded benchmarks do not show any test where it wins. Since both GPUs are end-of-life products and neither has a launch MSRP recorded, the decision rests purely on measured performance and feature support. The Arc A350M delivers better results in every measured category.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A350M | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | GCN 4.0 |

| Chip | DG2-128 | Polaris 22 |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) | Vega (Vega M) |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 24.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1150 MHz | 931 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 1011 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 700 MHz (1400 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 1024 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 179.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 48 | 80 |

| ROPs | 24 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 6 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 52.80 GPixel/s | 32.35 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 105.6 GTexel/s | 80.88 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.379 TFLOPS | 2.588 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 65 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | IGP |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2022-03-29 | 2018-01-31 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A350M wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. Its OpenCL score of 24,546 is 25.6% higher than the RX Vega M GL's 19,549, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL. Its Vulkan score of 24,747 is 8.7% higher than the AMD part's 22,757, indicating strong performance in Vulkan-based applications as well.

The Arc A350M also wins on architectural features. It has dedicated ray tracing cores (6 RT cores), which the RX Vega M GL lacks entirely. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the AMD part's DirectX 12 (12_0), meaning the Intel GPU can handle more advanced rendering features. Its FP16 throughput of 6.758 TFLOPS is more than double its FP32 rate, which benefits workloads that use half-precision math.

The RX Vega M GL has no benchmark wins in the database. However, it does hold advantages in specific hardware specifications. Its memory bandwidth of 179.2 GB/s is 60% higher than the Arc A350M's 112.0 GB/s, which could theoretically help in memory-bound scenarios. It also has more shading units (1,280 versus 768), more TMUs (80 versus 48), and more ROPs (32 versus 24). Its HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus is an unusual configuration that provides high bandwidth, but the recorded benchmarks show this does not overcome the Intel part's advantages.

The Arc A350M is the better choice for users who need maximum compute performance, modern API support, and ray tracing capability. The RX Vega M GL is the better choice only for users who specifically value higher memory bandwidth and a wider memory bus, but no benchmark data supports that this translates into real-world wins. Given that the Intel part is also much more power-efficient (25 W TDP versus 65 W TDP), the Arc A350M offers superior performance per watt in every recorded test.