AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL vs Intel Arc B580 Comparison

Intel Arc B580 and AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL represent two vastly different eras and market positions in the GPU landscape. The B580 is a modern discrete graphics card built for desktop performance, while the RX Vega M GL is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for portability. The benchmark data available for direct comparison is limited to two compute-oriented tests, but the results are decisive and highlight the generational and architectural gulf between these two products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison provided consists of two Geekbench compute tests: OpenCL and Vulkan. In both, the Intel Arc B580 delivers a dominant victory over the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, with margins that are nothing short of staggering.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc B580 scores 92,821 points, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL manages only 19,549 points. This results in a delta percentage of 374.8% in favor of the Intel card. This means the B580’s raw compute throughput in this API is nearly four times higher than what the Vega M GL can achieve. The score difference of 73,272 points is not a marginal improvement; it represents a fundamental leap in processing capability.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even more pronounced gap. The Intel Arc B580 posts 109,672 points, versus 22,757 points for the AMD part. The delta percentage here is 381.9% in favor of Intel. This is the single largest proportional victory in the entire dataset, indicating that the B580’s architecture is exceptionally well-suited to modern, low-level graphics APIs. The Vulkan score for the B580 is also notably higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting strong driver optimization and hardware scheduling for this API. Conversely, the RX Vega M GL’s Vulkan score of 22,757 is only slightly above its OpenCL result, reflecting the older GCN architecture’s more modest scaling with this API generation.

Across the entire head-to-head set, the Intel Arc B580 secures 2 wins, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL secures 0. The data is unambiguous: in these compute benchmarks, the B580 is categorically superior, outpacing its rival by over 370% in both tested scenarios. There is no benchmark in the provided data where the AMD product comes out ahead.

Architecture Differences

The architectural disparity between these two GPUs is the root cause of the massive performance gap observed in the benchmarks. They are built on fundamentally different design philosophies, manufacturing processes, and technology generations.

The Intel Arc B580 is based on the Xe2-HPG architecture, specifically the BMG-G21 chip, and belongs to the Battlemage (Arc 5) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, allowing for a transistor count of 19,600 million on a 272 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 72.1M / mm², a figure that reflects high-end manufacturing. In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 22 chip. It is built on a mature 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, housing just 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, for a density of 24.0M / mm². The B580 packs nearly four times the transistors into a die that is only about 30% larger.

Memory configurations are also radically different. The Intel card features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s. The AMD part uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a much wider 1024-bit bus, but its effective bandwidth is only 179.2 GB/s. While HBM2 offers a wider bus, the B580’s higher-clocked GDDR6 provides over 2.5 times the raw bandwidth, which is critical for feeding its more powerful compute units.

The compute resources differ by a similar magnitude. The B580 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The RX Vega M GL is equipped with just 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs—exactly half the shaders and TMUs, and less than half the ROPs. The B580 also introduces dedicated 20 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD chip. This is a significant architectural advancement, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the Vega M GL cannot perform.

The clock speeds and resulting throughput metrics tell a similar story. The B580 runs at a constant 2670 MHz base and boost, while the Vega M GL operates at a much lower 931 MHz base and 1011 MHz boost. The Intel card’s FP32 performance is 13.67 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is 27.34 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio. The AMD card is limited to 2.588 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio), representing a five-fold deficit in raw shader throughput. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: the B580 achieves 213.6 GPixel/s and 427.2 GTexel/s, while the Vega M GL manages only 32.35 GPixel/s and 80.88 GTexel/s.

Other key differences include power and interface. The B580 is a dual-slot card with a 190 W TDP, requiring a 450 W power supply and a single 8-pin connector, and it uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The RX Vega M GL is an IGP with a 65 W TDP, no dedicated power connectors, and an integrated bus interface. The B580 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD chip is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 and 1.3, respectively.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the Intel Arc B580 wins in every measurable category where a direct comparison exists. Its victories are not merely quantitative but qualitative, reflecting a generational leap in compute capability.

Intel Arc B580 wins in all compute-heavy workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are over 370% higher than the AMD rival. This indicates a decisive advantage in general-purpose computing, rendering tasks that rely on OpenCL, and any application that leverages the Vulkan API for compute. The presence of ray tracing cores also gives it a distinct edge in any future or current ray-traced gaming workload, a feature the Vega M GL cannot offer. Its significantly higher pixel and texture rates also suggest better performance in traditional rasterization, though specific gaming benchmarks are not provided.

AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL wins in power efficiency and form factor. With a 65 W TDP compared to the B580’s 190 W, the AMD part consumes far less power. As an IGP, it requires no additional power connectors or a separate power supply recommendation, making it suitable for portable devices where space and thermal limits are paramount. Its production status is "End-of-life," but its design goal was integration, not raw performance. It has no wins in the provided benchmark suite, but its architecture is built for a completely different use case scenario—embedded and mobile computing.

There is no scenario in the data where the RX Vega M GL outperforms the Arc B580 in terms of speed. The only advantage it holds is its operational envelope, which is a function of its integrated design and low power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc B580 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 23,021, compared to the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL’s 21,153. This places the B580 in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega M GL sits in the 66th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc B580 in Vulkan compute?

A: The Arc B580 scores 109,672 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 381.9% higher than the RX Vega M GL’s score of 22,757. This represents the largest performance delta between the two in any test.

Q: What are the key memory differences between the two?

A: The Arc B580 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX Vega M GL has 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, providing 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL support ray tracing?

A: No, the RX Vega M GL has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications. The Intel Arc B580, in contrast, has 20 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the TDP and form factor difference?

A: The Intel Arc B580 has a 190 W TDP and is a dual-slot, discrete card requiring a 450 W power supply. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has a 65 W TDP and is an IGP, requiring no external power.

Q: Which GPU is based on a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Arc B580 is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for the Intel Arc B580. It is categorically superior to the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL in raw performance, as evidenced by its dominant wins in both OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks with margins exceeding 370%. Its architectural advantages—including a newer 5 nm process, a much larger transistor budget, dedicated ray tracing cores, and significantly higher memory bandwidth—make it the only choice for any performance-sensitive task.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, however, should not be dismissed as a failure. Its design goals were different. With a 65 W TDP and an integrated form factor, it is meant for systems where power consumption and physical space are the primary constraints. It is an end-of-life product from 2018, and its performance profile reflects that era. In a direct comparison, the B580 wins every benchmark, but the Vega M GL wins in the categories of efficiency and integration—areas where the B580 cannot compete due to its discrete, power-hungry design.

For a user building a desktop system and seeking maximum compute performance, the Intel Arc B580 is the clear winner. For a user needing a low-power, integrated solution for a portable device, the AMD part has its place, but it is not a performance rival to the Intel card. The verdict is straightforward: the Intel Arc B580 is the superior product in every measured performance metric.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc B580 | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL |

|:--- |:--- |:--- |

| Architecture | Xe2-HPG | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 19,600 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 272 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Base Clock | 2670 MHz | 931 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2670 MHz | 1011 MHz |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 1024 bit |

| Bandwidth | 456.0 GB/s | 179.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 160 | 80 |

| ROPs | 80 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 20 | 0 |

| Pixel Rate | 213.6 GPixel/s | 32.35 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 427.2 GTexel/s | 80.88 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 13.67 TFLOPS | 2.588 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 27.34 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 190 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | IGP |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-12-12 | 2018-01-31 |