AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs Intel Arc A770 Comparison

The Intel Arc A770 and AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 are both end-of-life graphics cards that nonetheless occupy the same performance tier in the database, with the Arc A770 holding a razor-thin lead in average benchmark scores. The data shows two very different design philosophies separated by five years of architectural evolution, yet they land within 0.4% of each other in aggregate performance, making their head-to-head comparison a study in how generational efficiency offsets raw compute differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the dataset is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisively in favor of the Intel Arc A770. The Arc A770 scores 109,175 points, while the Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562 points. This represents a 59.2% advantage for the Intel card, a massive gap that dwarfs the 0.4% difference in their overall average benchmark scores.

That discrepancy between the head-to-head result and the aggregate average requires careful interpretation. The Arc A770's average benchmark score of 68,809 is pulled down by its other two benchmark results: 2,969 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 94,284 in Geekbench Vulkan. The MI25 only has the single OpenCL result, meaning its average of 68,562 is entirely derived from that one test. When comparing the two cards directly on the OpenCL workload, the Arc A770's 109,175 versus the MI25's 68,562 shows the Intel part delivering 59.2% more performance, which is a substantial margin in any real-world context.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card, the MI25's deltaPct of 2.2% against the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 and 1.8% against the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 indicates it sits slightly above those older workstation parts. The Arc A770, meanwhile, shows a 2.2% lead over the Quadro P6000 and a 1.9% deficit against the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile. This places both cards in the same crowded mid-range tier, but the OpenCL result suggests the Arc A770 has significantly more headroom in compute-heavy workloads that the MI25 cannot match.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A770 has an average benchmark score of 68,809, which is 0.4% higher than the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25's 68,562, according to the nearestRivals data.

Q: How much faster is the Arc A770 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Arc A770 scores 109,175 compared to the MI25's 68,562, giving the Intel card a 59.2% advantage in that specific benchmark.

Q: Do both cards have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both the Arc A770 and the MI25 have 16 GB of memory, though the Arc A770 uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus while the MI25 uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus.

Q: Which card has higher pixel throughput?

A: The Arc A770 has a pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s, which is more than three times the MI25's 96.00 GPixel/s, reflecting the Intel card's higher ROP count of 128 versus 64.

Q: What generation of PCIe interface does each card use?

A: The Arc A770 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the MI25 uses the older PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Q: Does the MI25 support real-time ray tracing?

A: No, the MI25 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications, whereas the Arc A770 includes 32 RT cores.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is stark and explains most of the performance differences observed in the benchmarks. The Arc A770 is built on Intel's Xe-HPG architecture using the DG2-512 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 21,700 million transistors packed into a 406 mm² die. The MI25, by contrast, uses AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 12,500 million transistors on a larger 495 mm² die.

The transistor density tells the story of process advantage: the Arc A770 achieves 53.4M transistors per mm², more than double the MI25's 25.3M per mm². This efficiency gain allows Intel to run the Arc A770 at a base clock of 2100 MHz and boost clock of 2400 MHz, while the MI25 operates at just 1400 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Clock speed differences alone would suggest a significant performance gap, and the benchmark data confirms this in the OpenCL test.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The Arc A770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI25 employs 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, which yields 436.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the much wider bus on the AMD card, the GDDR6 implementation on Intel's part still delivers 17.4% more bandwidth, at a memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective) for the MI25.

Feature support diverges as well. The Arc A770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI25 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel card includes 32 RT cores, which the MI25 lacks entirely. The Arc A770 also has twice the ROP count (128 versus 64) and a significantly higher texture rate of 614.4 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the available data, the Intel Arc A770 is the superior card for compute workloads, as demonstrated by its 59.2% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. The Arc A770 also offers higher pixel rate (307.2 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (614.4 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (19.66 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS). The MI25 cannot match any of these performance metrics.

However, the MI25 does have one notable advantage: power consumption. The Arc A770 has a TDP of 225 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the MI25 consumes 300 W and requires a 700 W PSU. That is not a point in the MI25's favor — it is a point against it. The Intel card delivers more performance at 25% lower power draw, which is a direct consequence of the 6 nm versus 14 nm process gap.

For a buyer choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the data overwhelmingly points to the Arc A770. It wins the only direct benchmark comparison, has superior specifications across nearly every measurable category, and does so with lower power requirements. The MI25's sole advantage is its 2048-bit HBM2 bus, but that does not translate into higher bandwidth or better benchmark scores. The Arc A770 is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing compute performance, while the MI25 offers no compensating benefit based on the data available.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field in the dataset. The Arc A770 uses a 6 nm process with 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, while the MI25 uses a 14 nm process with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. Clock speeds favor Intel: 2100 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost versus 1400 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the Arc A770 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) and the MI25 at 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective).

Memory bandwidth favors the Arc A770 at 512.0 GB/s versus 436.2 GB/s, despite the MI25's wider 2048-bit bus compared to 256-bit. Both cards have 4096 shading units and 256 TMUs, but ROP counts differ at 128 for Intel and 64 for AMD. The Arc A770 has 32 RT cores; the MI25 has none. Pixel rate is 307.2 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 614.4 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 19.66 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 39.32 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS.

Power requirements differ substantially: the Arc A770 draws 225 W with a 550 W suggested PSU and uses a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector, while the MI25 draws 300 W with a 700 W suggested PSU and uses 2x 8-pin connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for Intel and PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD. Display outputs also differ: the Arc A770 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the MI25 has no display outputs at all. API support differs in DirectX (12 Ultimate versus 12_1) and Vulkan (1.4 versus 1.3).

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A770 wins in every category where a direct comparison is possible. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, it leads by 59.2%. In raw throughput metrics, it has higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, higher FP32 and FP16 compute, and higher memory bandwidth. It has double the ROP count and adds ray tracing support that the MI25 lacks entirely. It also has a more modern API stack with DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, plus display outputs for general-purpose use.

The MI25 has no benchmark wins in the dataset, and its specifications do not reveal any area where it exceeds the Arc A770 except for the memory bus width of 2048 bits versus 256 bits. That wider bus does not produce higher bandwidth, as the Arc A770's 512.0 GB/s exceeds the MI25's 436.2 GB/s. The MI25 also has a larger die at 495 mm², but that is a consequence of the older 14 nm process rather than a performance advantage.

For use cases, the data suggests the Arc A770 is better suited for any workload that benefits from compute throughput, modern API features, or display connectivity. The MI25, with no display outputs and older architecture, would only be relevant in a headless compute server where its lower average score of 68,562 versus the Arc A770's 68,809 might be acceptable — but even there, the Arc A770 provides higher performance at lower power draw. The MI25's sole redeeming feature is that it exists in the same performance percentile as the Arc A770, which means for non-OpenCL workloads, the practical difference in average scores is just 0.4%.