AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows two fundamentally different products that do not compete directly in the same physical segment. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM is a discrete, single-slot add-in board with 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with system-shared memory. The benchmark wins are split by workload type, with each card dominating in areas that align with its architectural priorities.

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM wins on raw rasterization throughput. Its pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s is 47% higher than the Intel Arc Pro B370's 48.00 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s beats Intel's 96.00 GTexel/s by 28%. The AMD card also delivers higher FP32 compute at 7.885 TFLOPS versus Intel's 6.144 TFLOPS, a 28% advantage. These numbers indicate the AMD card carries more shading units (1792 vs 1280), more texture mapping units (112 vs 40), and more render output units (64 vs 20). For traditional 3D rendering, where pixel fill and texture throughput dominate, the AMD card is the clear winner.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins decisively on FP16 compute. Its FP16 throughput of 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is 56% higher than the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). This is a significant architectural difference: Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture processes half-precision math at twice the rate of single-precision, while AMD's RDNA 3.0 processes both at the same rate. Workloads that leverage FP16, such as certain AI inference tasks, image processing pipelines, and some compute shaders, will favor the Intel part.

The Intel card also wins on power efficiency by a wide margin. Its 25 W TDP is less than half of the AMD card's 55 W TDP. The Intel part requires no power connectors and operates as an IGP, making it suitable for portable devices where the display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent". The AMD card needs a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU, placing it firmly in desktop systems.

In terms of memory, the AMD card has a clear structural advantage with dedicated VRAM. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part relies on "System Shared" memory with "System Dependent" bandwidth, which means its performance is tied to the host system's memory configuration. For gaming and GPU-intensive workloads that require consistent memory bandwidth, the AMD card's dedicated VRAM is superior.

The process node comparison favors Intel. The Arc Pro B370 uses a 3 nm process from Intel's own foundry, while the Radeon RX 7400 OEM uses TSMC's 6 nm process. The Intel part achieves higher boost clocks (2400 MHz vs 1100 MHz) despite the lower TDP, which reflects the denser, more efficient 3 nm process. The AMD card compensates with more execution units and wider memory bus.

The release timeline places the Intel part later. The AMD card was released on 2025-08-07, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 came on 2026-01-26, a gap of several months. Both cards sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the mid-range performance tier, though their physical implementations differ completely.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural generations from different manufacturers.

AMD's Radeon RX 7400 OEM uses the Navi 33 chip, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish". It belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The architecture uses 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput are identical at 7.885 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio between single and half precision.

Intel's Arc Pro B370 uses the Panther Lake chip, built on the Xe3-LPG architecture. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation and is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database. The architecture uses 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. Its FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS, while FP16 throughput reaches 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. This means Intel's architecture dedicates hardware to half-precision operations, doubling throughput versus FP32.

Both cards support the same DirectX version (12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are listed as having 12 Ultimate API support, which includes hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders. The AMD card has 28 RT cores versus Intel's 10, suggesting AMD has more ray tracing hardware resources, though the database does not provide RT benchmark scores.

The memory architectures differ fundamentally. AMD uses dedicated GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system-shared memory, where the bus width, type, and bandwidth are all "System Shared" or "System Dependent". This is a critical architectural distinction: AMD's memory subsystem is fixed and predictable, while Intel's depends entirely on the host platform's memory configuration.

Power delivery also differs. The AMD card has a 55 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The Intel part has a 25 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU, consistent with its IGP status. The AMD card is single-slot with dimensions of 167 mm (6.6 inches) in length, while the Intel part has no listed dimensions due to being integrated.

The bus interface differs completely: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel uses "IGP", meaning it connects through the processor's integrated graphics path rather than a discrete PCIe slot. The AMD card has fixed display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1), while Intel's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent", reflecting its mobile/integrated positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores between these two GPUs, and neither card has individual benchmark entries. The wins are derived from the specification-level performance indicators.

The largest win for AMD is in pixel fill rate. The Radeon RX 7400 OEM produces 70.40 GPixel/s versus Intel's 48.00 GPixel/s, a 47% advantage. This means the AMD card can rasterize 22.4 more gigapixels per second. In practical terms, higher resolutions and more complex scenes with heavy overdraw will run faster on the AMD part.

The second-largest win for AMD is in texture fill rate. At 123.2 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s, AMD leads by 28%. This advantage comes from having 112 TMUs versus Intel's 40, a 2.8x difference in texture unit count. Despite Intel's higher boost clock (2400 MHz vs 1100 MHz), the sheer number of texture units on AMD's chip wins out.

AMD also leads in FP32 compute by 28%: 7.885 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS. This difference matters for general compute workloads, physics simulations, and single-precision shader math.

The largest win for Intel is in FP16 compute. The Arc Pro B370 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS, which is 56% higher than AMD's 7.885 TFLOPS. This is the single biggest percentage advantage in either direction. The 2:1 FP16 ratio on Intel's architecture means applications that use half-precision will see substantial gains. This includes machine learning inference, certain image processing algorithms, and compute-heavy graphics effects.

Intel also wins on power efficiency. The 25 W TDP versus AMD's 55 W means Intel draws 30 fewer watts, or 55% less power. The Intel part requires no power connector and no suggested PSU, while AMD needs external power. For thermally constrained or battery-powered systems, this advantage is decisive.

Intel also wins on boost clock frequency: 2400 MHz versus AMD's 1100 MHz, a 118% higher clock. However, this does not translate to overall performance wins because AMD uses far more execution units.

The memory bandwidth comparison cannot be scored directly because Intel's bandwidth is "System Dependent" and not a fixed number. AMD's 172.8 GB/s is a known quantity, while Intel's varies with the host system's memory speed and configuration.

Both cards share the same API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), so no wins are recorded there. Both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, indicating mid-tier positioning.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput in single precision?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, which is 28% higher than the Intel Arc Pro B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. AMD's 1792 shading units versus Intel's 1280 provide the advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B370 have any performance advantage at all?

A: Yes. The Intel part delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP16, which is 56% higher than AMD's 7.885 TFLOPS. Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture processes FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, doubling throughput versus FP32. Workloads using half-precision math will favor the Intel GPU.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The AMD card has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card uses system-shared memory, with bus width, type, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent". AMD's memory performance is fixed; Intel's depends on the host platform.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The AMD card has a 55 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The Intel card has a 25 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU, consistent with its integrated graphics design.

Q: Can the Intel Arc Pro B370 be used in a desktop PCIe slot?

A: No. The Intel part's bus interface is listed as "IGP", meaning it is an integrated graphics processor connected through the host processor. It has no PCIe x8 or x16 interface. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing hardware?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 has 10. The database does not provide ray tracing benchmark scores, but the hardware count suggests AMD has more RT resources.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on use case and system form factor.

For desktop users building or upgrading a discrete GPU system, the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM is the stronger choice. It wins on pixel rate (70.40 GPixel/s vs 48.00 GPixel/s), texture rate (123.2 GTexel/s vs 96.00 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (7.885 TFLOPS vs 6.144 TFLOPS). It has dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory with fixed 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, 28 RT cores, and a 128-bit memory bus. It requires a 250 W PSU and a 1x 6-pin connector, which are modest requirements for a discrete card. Its single-slot 167 mm length fits standard desktop cases.

For portable devices and power-constrained systems, the Intel Arc Pro B370 is the appropriate choice. Its 25 W TDP is 55% lower than AMD's 55 W, it requires no power connectors, and it operates as an IGP, meaning no separate card slot is needed. Its FP16 compute advantage (12.29 TFLOPS vs 7.885 TFLOPS) provides a 56% lead for half-precision workloads. The 3 nm Intel process enables a 2400 MHz boost clock at low power. The system-shared memory architecture is flexible, though its bandwidth is dependent on the host platform.

The 50th percentile ranking for both GPUs indicates they sit at the midpoint of all GPUs in the database. Neither card is a top-tier performer, but each leads in its respective domain: AMD in traditional rasterization and dedicated memory, Intel in power efficiency and FP16 compute.

Users who prioritize consistent, high-bandwidth memory and rasterization throughput should select the AMD card. Users who prioritize minimal power draw, no external power connectors, and half-precision compute should select the Intel part. The choice depends entirely on whether the system has a PCIe slot and power budget for a discrete card, or whether the GPU must be integrated into a portable device.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM | Intel Arc Pro B370 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe3-LPG |

| Process Node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 112 | 40 |

| ROPs | 64 | 20 |

| RT Cores | 28 | 10 |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 300 MHz |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 6.144 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 48.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 96.00 GTexel/s |

| Memory | 8 GB GDDR6, 128-bit, 172.8 GB/s | System Shared, System Dependent |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | Unknown |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | Unknown |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | Unknown |

| Release Date | 2025-08-07 | 2026-01-26 |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |