AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT and Intel Arc A350M represent two entirely different philosophies in GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects this starkly. The RX 6750 XT is a high-power desktop part built for maximum throughput, while the Arc A350M is a low-power mobile chip designed for efficiency. The data shows a split decision: the Intel part wins decisively in one compute workload, while the AMD part dominates in another by a massive margin, making the choice between them entirely dependent on the target application.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A350M claims its sole victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test, a synthetic compute benchmark that measures raw data-parallel processing. Here, the Arc A350M scores 24,546 points, which is 33.3% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT's 16,360 points. This is a significant upset, as it shows that Intel's Xe-HPG architecture, even in a low-power mobile configuration, can outperform a desktop GPU in certain general-purpose compute tasks. This win positions the Arc A350M as the better choice for workloads that rely heavily on OpenCL compute, such as some physics simulations, video encoding, and certain scientific applications.

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT wins the other head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, with a score of 98,089 points. This is a staggering 296.4% higher than the Arc A350M's 24,747 points. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead graphics API, and this result shows that in actual graphics rendering workloads, the RX 6750 XT is in a completely different league. The Arc A350M's Vulkan score is actually very close to its own OpenCL score, suggesting that its hardware is compute-focused rather than graphics-focused. For any gaming or graphics-rendering task that uses Vulkan, the RX 6750 XT is the only viable option between the two.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce this split. The RX 6750 XT has an average benchmark score of 26,011, placing it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. The Arc A350M has an average score of 24,647, placing it in the 70th percentile. Despite the near-identical percentiles, the RX 6750 XT's average is dragged down by its extremely low OpenCL score, while its Vulkan score is what propels it forward. The Arc A350M is more consistent across its two tested workloads, but its ceiling is far lower.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, using the Navi 22 chip, and is part of the Radeon RX 6000 series and Navi II generation. It is manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process node. The Intel Arc A350M, conversely, uses the Xe-HPG architecture, built on the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation. It is manufactured on a newer 6 nm TSMC process node.

The physical size and complexity of the chips are dramatically different. The AMD chip contains 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 51.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel chip is much smaller, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving it a slightly lower density of 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter. This difference in scale directly translates to performance capability, as the RX 6750 XT has far more hardware resources to draw upon.

The compute resource allocation is where the performance gap becomes clear. The RX 6750 XT has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). It also features 40 ray tracing cores. The Arc A350M is far more modest, with only 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, along with just 6 ray tracing cores. This means the AMD GPU has more than three times the raw shader throughput potential, which is why its Vulkan score is so much higher.

Clock speeds and power targets also tell a story. The RX 6750 XT has a base clock of 2150 MHz, a boost clock of 2600 MHz, and a game clock of 2495 MHz, all while operating at a 250 W TDP. The Arc A350M has a much lower base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, with a TDP of just 25 W. This 10x difference in power consumption is the defining factor of the Arc A350M's design, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the RX 6750 XT's power draw would be impossible to manage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmarks provide a clear and dramatic picture of the performance divide. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A350M wins with 24,546 points against the AMD's 16,360 points, a delta of -33.3% for the AMD part. This is a surprising result, as it shows that Intel's GPU can process certain parallel compute workloads more efficiently than AMD's larger, faster-clocked chip. The data suggests that the Xe-HPG architecture has a compute efficiency advantage that overcomes its massive deficit in raw hardware resources, at least in this specific test.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables are turned completely. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT scores 98,089 points, while the Intel Arc A350M scores only 24,747 points. This represents a 296.4% advantage for the AMD GPU, meaning it is nearly four times faster in this graphics-oriented workload. This is the benchmark that matters most for gaming and real-time rendering, and it shows that the RX 6750 XT's 2,560 shading units and 64 ROPs are simply overwhelming for the Arc A350M's 768 shading units and 24 ROPs.

It is worth remembering the Arc A350M's Vulkan score of 24,747 is nearly identical to its OpenCL score of 24,546. The RX 6750 XT, in contrast, shows a massive gap between its Vulkan score of 98,089 and its OpenCL score of 16,360. This suggests that AMD's architecture is heavily optimized for graphics workloads, while Intel's is more balanced but lacks the peak performance needed for high-end graphics. The data clearly shows that the RX 6750 XT is a graphics powerhouse, while the Arc A350M is a competent compute engine with limited graphics capability.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs show almost no common ground beyond their API support. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but everything else is different. The most critical difference is power: the RX 6750 XT has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W power supply, while the Arc A350M has a TDP of just 25 W and is classified as an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor), meaning it draws power from the laptop's main system.

Memory configuration is another major divider. The RX 6750 XT comes with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A350M has only 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This 3x difference in memory capacity and nearly 4x difference in bandwidth means the RX 6750 XT can handle much larger textures and data sets without stuttering.

The physical and interface specifications also differ substantially. The RX 6750 XT is a dual-slot desktop card with a 267 mm length and requires a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connector. It connects via PCIe 4.0 x16. The Arc A350M has no physical dimensions listed, is portable-device dependent for display outputs, and uses a narrower PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The RX 6750 XT also has dedicated display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the A350M's outputs are determined by the laptop manufacturer.

Clock speeds and memory speeds also show the performance hierarchy. The RX 6750 XT runs its memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the Arc A350M runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The RX 6750 XT's base clock of 2150 MHz is higher than the Arc's boost clock of 2200 MHz is only marginally higher than the AMD's base. The AMD's FP32 performance is 13.31 TFLOPS versus the Intel's 3.379 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 166.4 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT has an average benchmark score of 26,011, compared to the Intel Arc A350M's 24,647, despite both GPUs sitting in the 70th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How much faster is the AMD GPU in Vulkan graphics performance?

A: The RX 6750 XT scores 98,089 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 296.4% higher than the Arc A350M's 24,747 points.

Q: Is the Intel Arc A350M better at any compute task?

A: Yes, the Arc A350M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 24,546 points, beating the RX 6750 XT's 16,360 points by 33.3%.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two?

A: The RX 6750 XT has a TDP of 250 W, while the Arc A350M has a TDP of just 25 W, making the Intel part ten times more power-efficient.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, despite their different architectures.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 6750 XT offers 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth over a 192-bit bus, while the Arc A350M offers 112.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

The Verdict

The data provides a simple, if stark, conclusion. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the only choice for any graphics-intensive workload. Its Vulkan score of 98,089 is nearly four times that of the Arc A350M, and its 12 GB of memory and 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth make it suitable for high-resolution gaming and rendering. The RX 6750 XT is also surrounded by rivals with similar average scores, such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (1.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (0.5% delta), placing it in a competitive desktop performance tier. Its 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is a clear indicator of its raw power.

The Intel Arc A350M is a niche product that wins only in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its 24,546 score is impressive for a 25 W part, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (0.8% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (1.5% delta), showing it holds its own against older desktop parts in compute. However, its 4 GB memory capacity and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth severely limit its graphics potential. For a laptop user who needs a GPU for light compute tasks, video encoding, or basic acceleration, the Arc A350M is a power-efficient option. But for anyone who intends to play modern games or do any serious 3D rendering, the RX 6750 XT is the only rational choice, despite its 250 W power draw and need for a 600 W power supply. The benchmark results are unambiguous: graphics workloads belong to AMD, and the Intel part is a compute specialist.