AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs Intel Arc A310 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the Intel Arc A310 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100. Out of nine benchmark comparisons, the Intel Arc A310 took eight wins, with the AMD card managing only a single narrow victory. The average benchmark score for the Arc A310 sits at 7550, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 trails at 6330, a difference that places the Intel part at the 40th percentile of all GPUs versus the AMD part's 37th percentile.

The largest margin of victory for the Arc A310 comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 30607 against the WX 4100's 17642. That represents a 73.5% advantage, the single biggest delta in the entire head-to-head set. The OpenCL result is particularly notable because it shows the Intel architecture handling compute workloads far more efficiently than the older GCN design. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc A310 again leads decisively, posting 28964 versus 18703, a 54.9% gap. Both results suggest that the Intel GPU's execution resources are being utilized more effectively across different API environments.

Passmark DirectX 10 shows the most lopsided relative performance, with the Arc A310 scoring 31 against the WX 4100's 16, a 93.8% advantage. This is the only test where the winner nearly doubled the loser's score. The DirectX 11 test narrows somewhat, with the Arc A310 at 33 versus 24, a 37.5% lead. DirectX 12 follows a similar pattern, 29 to 22, a 31.8% advantage. Even in the legacy DirectX 9 test, the Arc A310 maintains a clear edge, scoring 69 against 56, a 23.2% margin.

The Passmark G3D score, which represents overall 3D graphics performance, heavily favors the Arc A310 at 5433 versus 3699, a 46.9% difference. This is the most representative single number for gaming or general 3D rendering performance, and the gap is substantial. Compute performance in Passmark GPU Compute also favors Intel, with 2157 against 1475, a 46.2% margin.

The only benchmark where the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 comes out ahead is Passmark G2D, a 2D graphics test. The AMD card scores 646 against the Arc A310's 625, a modest 3.3% advantage. This win is narrow and likely reflects differences in 2D blitting and desktop composition paths rather than any fundamental architectural superiority.

It is importantly the Arc A310's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R7 250 (average score 7557, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, delta -0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, delta 1%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, delta 1.4%). The Arc A310 sits essentially level with these cards, within a 1.4% band. The WX 4100, by contrast, aligns with the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327, delta 0.1%), NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282, delta 0.8%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE / GTX 580M (both 6389, delta -0.9%). The Intel card operates in a performance class roughly 19% higher than the AMD card based on average scores, a positioning that the head-to-head results reinforce.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A310 records an average benchmark score of 7550, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 averages 6330. The Intel part also holds a higher percentile ranking at 40 versus the AMD part's 37.

Q: Is the Intel Arc A310 faster in every DirectX test?

A: Yes. In DirectX 10 the Arc A310 scores 31 versus 16 (93.8% higher), in DirectX 11 it scores 33 versus 24 (37.5% higher), in DirectX 12 it scores 29 versus 22 (31.8% higher), and in DirectX 9 it scores 69 versus 56 (23.2% higher).

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 win any benchmark?

A: The AMD card wins the Passmark G2D test, scoring 646 against the Arc A310's 625, a 3.3% advantage. This is the only benchmark in the comparison where the AMD GPU outperforms the Intel GPU.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in compute workloads?

A: The Arc A310 leads in both compute-oriented tests. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 30607 versus 17642 (73.5% higher), and in Passmark GPU Compute it scores 2157 versus 1475 (46.2% higher).

Q: What is the difference in 3D graphics performance?

A: The Passmark G3D score shows the Arc A310 at 5433 versus the WX 4100 at 3699, a 46.9% advantage for the Intel GPU. This is the main overall 3D rendering metric and clearly favors the Arc A310.

Q: Which GPU uses a newer API feature set?

A: The Intel Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel card also includes hardware ray tracing cores, which the AMD card lacks.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, containing 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, which yields a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Baffin chip, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris generation (WX x100). It is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter.

The Intel chip includes 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. It also carries 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD card. The AMD GPU, by contrast, offers more shading units at 1024, more TMUs at 64, and the same 16 ROPs, but no ray tracing hardware. The Intel architecture also supports FP16 computation at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 5.376 TFLOPS for FP16 versus 2.688 TFLOPS for FP32, while the AMD card runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning both FP16 and FP32 are 2.460 TFLOPS.

The process node difference is significant. Intel's 6 nm TSMC process allows for a much higher transistor density, which explains how the Arc A310 packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die. The AMD Baffin chip, on a 14 nm node, achieves only 3,000 million transistors across 123 mm². This is a generational leap in manufacturing efficiency, and it shows in the performance results: the Arc A310 achieves higher scores across nearly every benchmark despite having fewer shading units and a narrower memory bus.

The Intel GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing and variable rate shading, while the AMD card only supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Vulkan support also differs, with the Arc A310 at version 1.4 versus the WX 4100 at 1.3. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The API differences reflect the architectural gap: the Arc A310 is designed for modern workloads with hardware ray tracing, while the WX 4100 is a Polaris-era product with a more limited feature set.

Specification Differences

The Intel Arc A310 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 differ across nearly every core specification. The Arc A310 has a base clock of 1750 MHz and a boost clock of 1750 MHz, while the WX 4100 runs at 1125 MHz base and 1201 MHz boost. Memory clocks also diverge: the Intel card uses GDDR6 at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the AMD card uses GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations show a tradeoff. Both cards have 4 GB of memory, but the Arc A310 uses a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 4100 uses a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card achieves higher bandwidth through faster GDDR6 memory despite the narrower bus. The AMD card's wider bus cannot compensate for the slower memory speed.

Compute specifications favor Intel in raw FP32 throughput: 2.688 TFLOPS versus the AMD card's 2.460 TFLOPS. Pixel rate also favors Intel at 28.00 GPixel/s versus 19.22 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors AMD at 76.86 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s. The AMD card's higher TMU count (64 versus 32) gives it the texture fill advantage.

Power characteristics differ substantially. The Arc A310 has a TDP of 30 W, while the WX 4100 has a TDP of 50 W. The suggested PSU for the Intel card is 200 W, while the AMD card suggests 250 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors required. The Intel card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Display outputs are both 4x mini-DisplayPort, but the Arc A310 uses DisplayPort 2.0 while the WX 4100 uses DisplayPort 1.4a. Physical dimensions exist only for the AMD card, which measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height. Release dates differ by six years: the WX 4100 launched on 2016-11-09, while the Arc A310 launched on 2022-10-11. The AMD card had a launch MSRP of 399 USD. Both are end-of-life products, with the Arc A310's predecessor being Xe Graphics and its successor Battlemage, while the WX 4100's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor Radeon Pro Vega.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 is the clear winner for compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 30607 versus 17642 (73.5% higher) and Passmark GPU Compute score of 2157 versus 1475 (46.2% higher) demonstrate a substantial advantage in general-purpose GPU compute. This makes the Arc A310 the better choice for OpenCL-based applications, physics simulation, and any workload that leverages FP32 or FP16 compute. The 2:1 FP16 ratio means the Intel card can double its throughput on half-precision workloads, a capability the AMD card lacks entirely.

For 3D rendering and graphics performance, the Arc A310 again wins decisively. The Passmark G3D score of 5433 against 3699 (46.9% higher) shows that the Intel card delivers significantly better overall 3D throughput. Every DirectX generation test favors the Intel card, with margins ranging from 23.2% in DirectX 9 to 93.8% in DirectX 10. This suggests the Arc A310 will perform better across both older titles and modern DirectX 12 Ultimate games, particularly those that leverage ray tracing, a feature the AMD card cannot accelerate.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has one narrow win in Passmark G2D, scoring 646 versus 625 (3.3% higher). This indicates a slight edge in 2D desktop composition and 2D graphical operations. For users whose primary workload involves 2D CAD, spreadsheet-heavy multi-monitor setups, or basic desktop acceleration, the WX 4100 holds a marginal advantage. However, this win is small and unlikely to matter in real-world use.

The AMD card also offers a wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit), which could theoretically benefit workloads that are sensitive to memory access patterns rather than raw bandwidth. However, the recorded data does not show this translating into a benchmark advantage outside of the G2D test. The AMD card's higher texture rate (76.86 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s) suggests it may handle texture-heavy workloads better, but no benchmark in the dataset isolates this capability.

For modern API support, the Arc A310 wins with Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate, versus the WX 4100's Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0). The Intel card also has a lower TDP (30 W versus 50 W) and a lower suggested PSU (200 W versus 250 W), making it more power-efficient per unit of performance. The Arc A310 achieves higher average scores (7550 versus 6330) while drawing less power, a combination that favors the Intel card in almost every application scenario. The only area where the AMD card clearly wins is 2D performance, and even there, the margin is minimal.