AMD Radeon R7 350 vs Intel Arc A310 Comparison

Intel Arc A310 and AMD Radeon R7 350 occupy the same performance percentile (40th) among all GPUs, yet their benchmark profiles could not be more different. The Intel part is a modern low-power discrete GPU built on a 6 nm process, while the AMD R7 350 is a legacy GCN 1.0 design from the 28 nm era. Based on the available data, the Arc A310 wins both head-to-head compute and graphics API benchmarks by massive margins, but the R7 350 holds its own in aggregate scoring due to a narrower set of tested workloads. The following analysis breaks down where each card wins, what separates their architectures, and what the numbers actually mean for real-world usage.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 is the clear winner in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A310 scores 30,607 against the R7 350’s 7,792, a 292.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A310 scores 28,964 versus 7,057, a 310.4% lead. These are not marginal wins; they represent generational leaps in compute throughput and API efficiency.

The R7 350, however, does not win a single recorded benchmark against the A310. Its only two benchmark entries—Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan—are both decisively lost. That said, the R7 350’s aggregate average benchmark score of 7,425 is only 1.7% below the A310’s 7,550, which suggests that the older card’s performance profile is more consistent across legacy workloads, even if it lacks the raw horsepower of the newer part.

Where the A310 excels is in modern, compute-heavy tasks. Its FP32 throughput of 2.688 TFLOPS is more than triple the R7 350’s 819.2 GFLOPS. The A310 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R7 350 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). For applications leveraging ray tracing, mesh shaders, or variable rate shading, the A310 is the only viable option of the two.

The R7 350’s strengths are more about compatibility and legacy support. It uses a 128-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, which is half the capacity but double the bus width of the A310’s 64-bit bus. This gives the R7 350 a 72.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than the A310’s 124.0 GB/s but still respectable for its era. For older DirectX 9/10/11 titles, the R7 350’s GCN architecture has a long track record, though the benchmark data does not include any legacy DirectX tests for this card.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The Intel Arc A310 uses the DG2-128 chip built on TSMC’s 6 nm process, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die. The AMD Radeon R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip on TSMC’s 28 nm node, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: 45.9 million transistors per mm² for Intel versus 12.2 million for AMD.

The A310 is based on Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). It features 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The R7 350, by contrast, uses GCN 1.0 architecture from the Pirate Islands generation (R7 300 series), with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—but no ray tracing cores.

Clock speeds also differ fundamentally. The A310 runs at a fixed 1750 MHz base and boost, while the R7 350 has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are similarly divergent: the A310’s GDDR6 runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the R7 350’s GDDR5 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

The A310 supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R7 350 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The A310 also offers four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, whereas the R7 350 provides one DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2. API support is another differentiator: the A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Power draw is dramatically different. The A310 has a TDP of 30 W with no power connectors, while the R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W, also with no power connectors. The suggested PSU is 200 W for the A310 and 250 W for the R7 350.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The Intel Arc A310 is significantly faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 30,607 versus 7,792 for the AMD Radeon R7 350, a 292.8% difference.

Q: Does the R7 350 win any benchmarks against the A310?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows two tests, both won by the A310. The R7 350’s aggregate score of 7,425 is 1.7% lower than the A310’s 7,550.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the Intel Arc A310, which includes 6 ray tracing cores. The R7 350 has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The A310 is built on a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors. The R7 350 uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life. The A310 was released in October 2022, while the R7 350 came out in July 2016.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The A310 has a 6 nm process node versus the R7 350’s 28 nm. Transistor count is 7,200 million versus 1,500 million, and die size is 157 mm² versus 123 mm². The A310’s transistor density is 45.9M/mm², compared to 12.2M/mm² for the R7 350.

Memory configurations are opposite in strategy: the A310 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth; the R7 350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The A310 has more shading units (768 vs 512) but the same number of TMUs (32) and ROPs (16). The A310 adds 6 ray tracing cores; the R7 350 has none.

Clock speeds: the A310 runs at 1750 MHz base and boost, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The R7 350 has no base/boost clocks listed, but memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s for the A310 versus 12.80 GPixel/s for the R7 350. Texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.688 TFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS.

Power requirements differ: TDP is 30 W for the A310 and 55 W for the R7 350. The A310 suggests a 200 W PSU, the R7 350 a 250 W PSU. Both are single-slot and require no power connectors. The A310 uses PCIe 4.0 x8; the R7 350 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 on the A310 versus one DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2 on the R7 350.

API support: the A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 350 has a listed physical length of 168 mm (6.6 inches); the A310 has no listed dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks with direct head-to-head data are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the Intel Arc A310 dominates both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the A310 scores 30,607 against the R7 350’s 7,792. That is a delta of 292.8% in favor of Intel. This test measures raw compute performance across a variety of workloads, including image processing, physics simulations, and general math. The A310’s 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 throughput explains this gap, as does its 6 nm process allowing higher clocks and efficiency.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is even larger: 28,964 for the A310 versus 7,057 for the R7 350, a 310.4% difference. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that benefits from modern architecture features and driver optimization. The A310’s support for Vulkan 1.4, compared to the R7 350’s Vulkan 1.2.170, plus its newer Xe-HPG architecture, gives it a decisive edge in this workload.

The R7 350’s nearest rival data shows it is positioned close to the A310 in aggregate scoring, with a delta of -1.7% against the Intel part. Its nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (delta -0.2%) and AMD Radeon HD 8850M (delta -0.3%), indicating that the R7 350’s overall score is not far off the A310’s when averaging across all benchmarks—but that average masks the A310’s overwhelming wins in the tests where both are measured.

For the A310, its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 250 (delta -0.1%) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (delta -0.4%), with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at +1% and AMD Radeon HD 8850M at +1.4%. These deltas are all within a couple of percent, showing that the A310’s aggregate score is competitive with a range of older and mid-range GPUs, even though its modern compute capabilities are far ahead of the R7 350.

The practical takeaway is clear: for any workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan—which includes most modern games, compute applications, and creative software—the Intel Arc A310 is in a different league. The AMD R7 350 remains a functional legacy card, but its architecture and API support limit it to older or lighter workloads. The data does not include DirectX or PassMark tests for the R7 350, so no comparison is possible in those areas, but the available evidence strongly favors the Intel part.