GPU Comparison

Intel Arc A310 and AMD Radeon HD 8850M are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different eras of GPU design. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, and it is decisively lopsided: the Intel Arc A310 crushes the AMD Radeon HD 8850M in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 30,607 versus 7,447, a delta of 311%. This is not a close contest; it is a generational gap made measurable.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it paints a stark picture. The Intel Arc A310 scores 30,607 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M manages just 7,447 points. That translates to a 311% advantage for the Intel part. To put that in perspective, the Arc A310 is not merely faster; it delivers over four times the raw compute performance in this workload. This result aligns with the average benchmark scores: the Arc A310 averages 7,550 across all recorded tests, while the HD 8850M averages 7,447. The Intel card's nearest rival by average score is the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7,557 (a -0.1% delta), and it sits 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. The HD 8850M, by contrast, is 0.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350, placing it firmly in integrated-graphics territory. The Arc A310's Passmark G3D score of 5,433 further underscores its superiority, whereas the HD 8850M has no equivalent score listed. In every measurable way, the Arc A310 is the dominant performer.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous, explaining the benchmark disparity. The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The AMD Radeon HD 8850M uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip, part of the Solar System (HD 8800M) generation. It is built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, but contains only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2 million per mm². The Arc A310 has a 6 nm node advantage, which allows for nearly five times the transistor count in a similar physical footprint. In terms of execution resources, the Arc A310 fields 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). It also includes 6 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the HD 8850M. The AMD GPU offers 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but no ray tracing support. Clock speeds differ drastically as well: the Arc A310 runs at 1750 MHz base and boost, while the HD 8850M operates at a modest 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. This clock advantage, combined with the newer architecture, yields a pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 56.00 GTexel/s for the Intel card, versus 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s for the AMD part. The FP32 compute is similarly lopsided: 2.688 TFLOPS for the Arc A310 versus 800.0 GFLOPS for the HD 8850M. The Intel card also supports FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a capability the AMD GPU does not list. API support diverges too, with the Arc A310 supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 8850M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A310 offers 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth via 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M provides only 64.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The Intel card has nearly double the bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon HD 8850M support ray tracing?

A: No. The HD 8850M has no ray tracing cores listed. The Intel Arc A310 includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, giving it hardware-accelerated ray tracing support.

Q: What is the power draw of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested PSU rating of 200 W. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M has no TDP or PSU specification listed in the data.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A310 achieves 2.688 TFLOPS in FP32, while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M reaches only 800.0 GFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A310 scores 30,607 versus 7,447 for the HD 8850M, a 311% difference.

Q: Which GPU is more recent?

A: The Intel Arc A310 was released on 2022-10-11, while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M launched on 2013-03-31. The Intel card is roughly nine years newer, which explains its architectural and performance advantages.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Arc A310 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 8850M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 6 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for AMD. Transistor count is 7,200 million versus 1,500 million, and die size is 157 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 45.9M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm². Base clocks are 1750 MHz versus 575 MHz, with boost clocks of 1750 MHz versus 625 MHz. Memory clocks are 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for Intel versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for AMD. Memory size is 4 GB versus 2 GB, type is GDDR6 versus GDDR5, bus width is 64-bit versus 128-bit, and bandwidth is 124.0 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. Shading units are 768 versus 640, TMUs are 32 versus 40, and ROPs are 16 for both. Ray tracing cores are 6 versus none. Pixel rates are 28.00 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 56.00 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.688 TFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS; FP16 is 5.376 TFLOPS for Intel, with no value for AMD. TDP is 30 W for Intel, with none listed for AMD. Slot width is single-slot for Intel, and it requires no power connectors; AMD has no such data. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 for Intel, with none listed for AMD. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan is 1.4 versus 1.2.170. The Arc A310's predecessor is Xe Graphics and successor is Battlemage; the HD 8850M's predecessor is London and successor is Gem System.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A310 is the superior GPU in every measured category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 30,607 is 311% higher than the HD 8850M's 7,447. It has more than triple the FP32 compute (2.688 TFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS), more than double the memory bandwidth (124.0 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s), double the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB), and a newer architecture with ray tracing support. The HD 8850M's only advantages are a wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit) and more TMUs (40 versus 32), but these do not compensate for its lower clocks, older process node, and lack of modern features. The Arc A310 also holds a 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs, identical to the HD 8850M, but its average benchmark score of 7,550 edges out the AMD card's 7,447. For any modern workload, the Intel Arc A310 is the clear choice. The HD 8850M is a relic from 2013, and the data shows it cannot compete with even a low-end 2022 discrete GPU.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded, so the "where each one wins" split is effectively one-sided. The Arc A310 dominates in compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL workloads, where it scores 30,607 versus 7,447. It also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, making it better suited for larger textures and higher resolutions. Its ray tracing cores give it a feature advantage in games that support hardware ray tracing, a capability the HD 8850M lacks entirely. The Arc A310's higher pixel rate (28.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (56.00 GTexel/s) indicate better fill-rate performance for rasterization-heavy scenes. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M has no recorded wins in any benchmark. Its only theoretical merits are its wider 128-bit memory bus and higher TMU count, which might slightly help in specific legacy workloads that favor those parameters, but no benchmark data supports this assertion. The HD 8850M's lower power output (no TDP listed, but its 28 nm process and 575 MHz clock suggest minimal draw) could make it acceptable for very old systems, but it is outclassed in all measurable performance metrics. In practical terms, the Arc A310 is the only viable option for gaming or compute, while the HD 8850M is relegated to vintage hardware collections or basic display output.