GPU Comparison

Intel Arc Pro A30M and AMD Radeon RX 470 represent two very different approaches to mobile and desktop graphics, separated by a generation gap and architectural philosophies. The Arc Pro A30M is Intel’s compact, power-efficient professional mobile solution built on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the RX 470 is a 14 nm desktop card from AMD’s GCN 4.0 era. The recorded benchmark data shows a single head-to-head result in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 470 scores 33,568 against the Arc Pro A30M’s 31,894, a 5% advantage for the AMD part. However, the broader database context, including average scores and percentile rankings, reveals a more nuanced picture. This analysis breaks down where each card excels, the architectural differences that drive behavior, and which user should prioritize which device.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 470 holds the only direct head-to-head benchmark win in the database, taking Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 33,568 versus 31,894 for the Intel Arc Pro A30M. That 5% margin is modest, but it is consistent with the RX 470’s higher raw FP32 throughput. The RX 470 delivers 4.940 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Arc Pro A30M manages 4.096 TFLOPS. In compute-heavy workloads that scale with shading units and clock rates, the RX 470’s 2048 shading units at a 1206 MHz boost clock give it a theoretical edge over the Arc’s 1024 shading units at 2000 MHz boost.

The Arc Pro A30M, however, does not need to win that particular test to be competitive. Its average benchmark score across the database is 31,894, which places it at the 76th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 470’s average score is 28,996, at the 74th percentile. That means the Arc Pro A30M, despite losing the single OpenCL test, actually sits higher in the overall distribution. The RX 470’s average is dragged down by its other benchmark results, including a Geekbench Metal score of 41,690 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 39,884, but those are not averaged into the same composite figure. The Arc Pro A30M’s single benchmark result is its OpenCL score, so its percentile reflects a strong showing in that specific API.

Where the Arc Pro A30M wins is in efficiency and feature set. It draws 50 W versus the RX 470’s 120 W, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The RX 470 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. For professional workloads that leverage ray tracing or mesh shaders, the Arc Pro A30M’s 8 dedicated RT cores and newer API support give it capabilities the RX 470 lacks entirely. The RX 470 has no RT cores and no tensor cores, while the Arc Pro A30M also lists no tensor cores but does include the RT hardware.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses the DG2-128 chip, built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the Alchemist generation for professional mobile use. It is fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, which yields a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The RX 470 uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. That chip contains 5,700 million transistors across a 232 mm² die, for a density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The Arc Pro A30M is clearly the more advanced process node, nearly doubling transistor density while using far less power.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Arc Pro A30M runs at a 1500 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, while the RX 470 runs at 926 MHz base and 1206 MHz boost. The Arc’s higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller shader array. The RX 470 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Arc Pro A30M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having half the shading units and half the TMUs, the Arc Pro A30M achieves a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s versus the RX 470’s 38.59 GPixel/s, because of its much higher boost clock. The texture rate tells a different story: the RX 470 hits 154.4 GTexel/s, while the Arc Pro A30M delivers 128.0 GTexel/s, reflecting the RX 470’s double TMU count.

Memory configurations are also distinct. The Arc Pro A30M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 470 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 211.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 470’s 65% higher memory bandwidth is significant for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions, while the Arc Pro A30M’s narrower bus is clearly optimized for power efficiency, not raw throughput. The RX 470 also uses a 1x 6-pin power connector and requires a 300 W suggested PSU, while the Arc Pro A30M has no power connectors, relying on the PCIe slot and portable device power delivery.

The bus interface also differs: the Arc Pro A30M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 470 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The newer PCIe 4.0 standard provides more bandwidth per lane, though the RX 470’s x16 width on PCIe 3.0 offers comparable total throughput. The RX 470 has a dual-slot form factor with dimensions of 240 mm length, 95 mm height, and 35 mm width, while the Arc Pro A30M’s dimensions are listed as portable device dependent, indicating a much smaller, embedded-style design.

The Verdict

The data indicates two different buyers. If the priority is raw compute performance in a single OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX 470 wins by 5%, and it also offers higher FP32 throughput (4.940 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS) and nearly double the memory bandwidth (211.2 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s). The RX 470 is the choice for users who need maximum shader throughput and texture fill on a desktop platform, and who can tolerate a 120 W power draw and a 240 mm dual-slot card.

If the priority is efficiency, modern API support, and a compact mobile form factor, the Intel Arc Pro A30M is the better fit. It consumes only 50 W, has no external power connectors, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 8 RT cores. Its higher boost clock (2000 MHz versus 1206 MHz) and superior pixel rate (64 GPixel/s versus 38.59 GPixel/s) make it competitive in geometry-heavy workloads. The Arc Pro A30M also sits at the 76th percentile versus the RX 470’s 74th, suggesting its overall database standing is slightly stronger despite losing the head-to-head test.

The RX 470’s average score of 28,996 is actually lower than the Arc Pro A30M’s 31,894, because the RX 470’s average is calculated across multiple benchmarks, including the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 842, which drags its composite down. The Arc Pro A30M’s single OpenCL score of 31,894 is higher than the RX 470’s average, which means that across the database’s full test suite, the Intel card is the more consistent performer. The RX 470 does have a strong Geekbench Metal score of 41,690 and Vulkan score of 39,884, but those do not appear in its average. Users who rely on Metal or Vulkan specifically might prefer the RX 470, but the database’s headline comparison favors the Arc Pro A30M in aggregate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M has an average benchmark score of 31,894, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 470’s average of 28,996. The Arc Pro A30M also ranks in the 76th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 470 ranks in the 74th.

Q: How do they compare in the direct head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 470 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 33,568 against the Intel Arc Pro A30M’s 31,894, a 5% difference. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 470 has 211.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth using 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Intel Arc Pro A30M has 128.0 GB/s using 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD Radeon RX 470 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 470 support ray tracing?

A: No. The AMD Radeon RX 470 has no ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Pro A30M includes 8 dedicated RT cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M has a TDP of 50 W with no power connectors. The AMD Radeon RX 470 has a TDP of 120 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a 300 W suggested PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon RX 470 scores 33,568, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M scores 31,894. That 5% delta is the RX 470’s only win in the head-to-head table, and it reflects the card’s higher FP32 compute rating of 4.940 TFLOPS versus the Arc Pro A30M’s 4.096 TFLOPS. The RX 470 also has twice as many shading units (2048 versus 1024) and four times the texture units (128 versus 64), which gives it an advantage in raw shader throughput despite its lower boost clock.

However, the Arc Pro A30M counters with a much higher boost clock of 2000 MHz versus the RX 470’s 1206 MHz. That clock advantage translates into a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s versus 38.59 GPixel/s, meaning the Intel part can fill frames faster at the same resolution. The Arc Pro A30M’s texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s, which is lower than the RX 470’s 154.4 GTexel/s, so the RX 470 remains ahead in texture-bound scenarios. The RX 470’s larger memory bus (256-bit versus 64-bit) and higher bandwidth (211.2 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s) also favor it in large data sets.

The database’s average scores tell a different story. The RX 470’s average of 28,996 is pulled down by its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 842, which is far below its OpenCL score. The Arc Pro A30M’s average of 31,894 is exactly its OpenCL score, so it does not suffer from a weak secondary benchmark. In percentile terms, the Arc Pro A30M ranks at the 76th percentile versus the RX 470’s 74th. That means the Intel card is better positioned in the overall GPU landscape, even though it loses the featured OpenCL test.

The RX 470’s other benchmark results, though not part of the head-to-head table, show its strengths. It scores 41,690 in Geekbench Metal and 39,884 in Geekbench Vulkan, both well above the Arc Pro A30M’s OpenCL score. For users running Metal or Vulkan workloads on a desktop, the RX 470 is clearly the stronger performer. The Arc Pro A30M, with its newer architecture and RT cores, is the better choice for DirectX 12 Ultimate applications and power-constrained mobile systems. The data supports a split decision: the RX 470 for pure compute and bandwidth, the Arc Pro A30M for efficiency and modern feature support.