AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs Intel Arc A550M Comparison

The Intel Arc A550M and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 occupy very different positions in the GPU landscape, despite both being end-of-life products. The Arc A550M is a mobile-focused part from Intel’s Alchemist generation, while the W6400 is a professional workstation card from AMD’s Navi II series. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the reasons behind that hierarchy, and the use cases each card serves, are worth examining in detail.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparison points: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both tests, the Intel Arc A550M is the outright winner. The margin is substantial in OpenCL, where the Arc A550M scores 49,894 against the Radeon PRO W6400’s 35,027. That translates to a 42.4% advantage for Intel. In Vulkan, the gap narrows but remains decisive: the Arc A550M posts 49,580, while the W6400 manages 39,286, a 26.2% lead for Intel.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the Arc A550M sits at 49,737, which places it in the 86th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The W6400 averages 37,157, putting it in the 80th percentile. The 12,580-point gap between their averages is consistent with the individual test results, though the W6400’s Vulkan score of 39,286 is notably closer to its average than its OpenCL score, suggesting the card performs relatively better under Vulkan workloads.

The Arc A550M’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, which averages 49,957 (0.4% ahead of the Arc), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 at 50,001 (0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at 50,951 (2.4% ahead). On the flip side, the Arc sits 2.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, which averages 48,477. This places the Arc A550M in a competitive band with high-end desktop GPUs from the previous generation, despite being a mobile part.

For the W6400, its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 at 37,507 (0.9% ahead), the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37,628 (1.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 at 37,648 (1.3% ahead). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X by 1.7%, which averages 36,530. The W6400’s performance cluster is thus closer to mid-range desktop parts, and its 80th percentile ranking reflects that position, though it is clearly below the Arc A550M in raw compute.

The head-to-head data shows no test where the W6400 wins. Intel claims both victories, with the OpenCL result being the more lopsided of the two. The Vulkan result, while still a win for Intel, shows that AMD’s architecture handles the lower-level API more efficiently relative to its own OpenCL performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, fabricated on the same process node but with vastly different die sizes and transistor budgets. The Intel Arc A550M uses the DG2-512 chip, based on the Xe-HPG architecture, and belongs to the Alchemist generation (Arc 5 Mobile). It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 21,700 million transistors packed into a 406 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 53.4 million per square millimeter.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip, based on RDNA 2.0, and is part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series). It is also fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, but with only 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip is roughly four times larger in both transistor count and die area, which explains much of its performance advantage.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The W6400 has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz, significantly higher than the Arc A550M’s 900 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost. The Arc compensates with more compute units: 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, compared to the W6400’s 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Arc also has 16 ray tracing cores, while the W6400 has 12.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The Arc A550M comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s. The Arc’s memory clock is rated at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the W6400 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The higher memory clock on the AMD card cannot compensate for the narrower bus.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The Arc A550M achieves 131.2 GPixel/s and 262.4 GTexel/s, while the W6400 achieves 74.27 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the Arc delivers 8.397 TFLOPS, more than double the W6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS. FP16 performance scales similarly: 16.79 TFLOPS for the Arc versus 7.130 TFLOPS for the W6400, both at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32.

Power consumption is notable. The Arc A550M has a TDP of 60 W and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) in terms of slot width, with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The W6400 is a single-slot card with a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It offers 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The bus interface differs as well: the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The narrower interface on the AMD card could limit performance in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, though the recorded benchmarks do not isolate this variable.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Arc A550M wins every benchmark category in the head-to-head comparison. Its 42.4% lead in OpenCL is the standout result, driven by its much larger compute footprint and memory bandwidth. The 26.2% lead in Vulkan is also significant, showing that the architectural advantage persists even when the API overhead is reduced.

The W6400’s strengths are not reflected in benchmark scores but in its physical and power characteristics. It is a single-slot card with a 50 W TDP and no external power connectors, making it suitable for compact workstation builds where space and power are constrained. Its suggested PSU of 250 W is modest, and its 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provide straightforward connectivity for professional displays. The Arc A550M, being an IGP with portable device dependent outputs, is not a drop-in card for a desktop workstation; it is designed for mobile platforms.

In terms of raw performance per watt, the W6400 delivers 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 at 50 W, which is 71.3 GFLOPS per watt. The Arc A550M delivers 8.397 TFLOPS at 60 W, which is 139.95 GFLOPS per watt. The Intel card is more efficient despite its higher absolute power draw. The W6400’s higher clock speeds do not overcome the deficit in shading units and memory bandwidth.

For users who need compute throughput, the Arc A550M is the clear choice. Its 8 GB of memory is double the W6400’s 4 GB, which matters for workloads that exceed a 4 GB frame buffer. The 224.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 128.0 GB/s further favors Intel. For users who need a low-profile, low-power discrete GPU with professional display outputs, the W6400 has a role, but that role is not defined by benchmark wins.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The Arc A550M, at the 86th percentile of all GPUs, sits well above the W6400’s 80th percentile. The nearest rival comparison shows the Arc trading blows with high-end desktop cards like the RTX 5070 Ti and RX 6900 XT, while the W6400 competes with the RTX 4070 and Tesla P4. That is a meaningful tier difference.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has an average benchmark score of 49,737, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 averages 37,157. The Arc scores 33.8% higher on average.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Intel Arc A550M scores 49,894 versus the W6400’s 35,027, a 42.4% difference. The Vulkan test shows a 26.2% gap in favor of Intel.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc has double the memory capacity and 75% more bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each card?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has a TDP of 60 W, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a TDP of 50 W. The W6400 requires no power connectors, while the Arc’s power connector configuration is not specified.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has 2048 shading units and 16 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 768 shading units and 12 ray tracing cores. The Arc has nearly three times the shading units.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking in the database?

A: The Intel Arc A550M is in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is in the 80th percentile. The Arc ranks higher overall.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A550M is the faster GPU in every recorded benchmark. Its 42.4% lead in OpenCL and 26.2% lead in Vulkan are decisive, and its average score of 49,737 places it in a performance tier that includes the RTX 5070 Ti and RX 6900 XT. The W6400, with its average of 37,157, sits alongside the RTX 4070 and Tesla P4, a full tier below.

Users who prioritize compute performance should choose the Intel Arc A550M. It offers double the memory capacity (8 GB versus 4 GB), more than double the FP32 throughput (8.397 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS), and a wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit). Its 86th percentile ranking reflects a GPU that can handle demanding workloads, including ray tracing with its 16 RT cores.

Users who need a discrete, single-slot GPU with professional display outputs and minimal power requirements should consider the AMD Radeon PRO W6400. Its 50 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it a straightforward addition to a workstation. Its 80th percentile ranking is respectable, but its 4 GB memory and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth will limit it in memory-intensive tasks.

The production status for both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a forward-looking investment. The Arc A550M’s IGP form factor and portable device dependent outputs mean it is not a general-purpose desktop card, whereas the W6400 is a conventional single-slot PCIe card. The choice comes down to whether the workload demands raw throughput, in which case the Arc wins, or a compact, low-power professional GPU, in which case the W6400 has merit despite its benchmark deficit. The recorded data does not show a single scenario where the W6400 outperforms the Arc A550M.