AMD Radeon RX 7400 vs Intel Arc Pro B65 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 has a full set of benchmark results, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 has no benchmark entries in the database. The RX 7400 sits at the 17th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2467. Its nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon 8040S, NVIDIA GeForce 710M, Intel HD Graphics 610, and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M, all score within 1.1% to 1.9% of it. This places the RX 7400 in a very specific performance tier, one that is close to integrated graphics solutions.

The Intel Arc Pro B65, despite lacking benchmark scores, is placed at the 50th percentile. This percentile ranking, combined with its architectural specifications, suggests a different class of hardware. The B65 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, also known as Battlemage, on a 5 nm process. It carries 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. The RX 7400, by contrast, uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm process, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The B65 is the denser chip, with a transistor density of 72.1M per mm² compared to the RX 7400's 65.2M per mm².

For any user whose primary concern is verified performance data, the RX 7400 is the only option with measurable results. The B65's 50th percentile standing is an outlier in this dataset because it has no average score. The RX 7400's compute score of 5152 in Passmark GPU Compute indicates a specific level of throughput. The B65's specifications, such as its 32 GB memory and 608.0 GB/s bandwidth, point to a different workload profile. The data suggests the B65 is aimed at tasks requiring large memory pools, while the RX 7400 is a lower-power, entry-level discrete option.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 is built on RDNA 3.0, with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish," and belongs to the Navi III generation. Its chip is designated Navi 33. The Intel Arc Pro B65 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation, with the BMG-G21 chip.

The manufacturing processes differ. The RX 7400 uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the B65 uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. This accounts for part of the density difference. The RX 7400 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The B65 has 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die.

Core configurations diverge significantly. The RX 7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also has 28 ray tracing cores. The B65 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, but only 20 ray tracing cores. The RX 7400 has more ray tracing hardware despite having fewer shading units.

Memory subsystems are radically different. The RX 7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The B65 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 608.0 GB/s. Memory clock speeds differ as well: the RX 7400 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the B65 runs at 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective.

The RX 7400 has a base clock of 1452 MHz and a boost clock of 2300 MHz, with a game clock of 2200 MHz. The B65 has a flat clock of 2400 MHz for both base and boost. This affects compute throughput. The RX 7400 delivers 16.49 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.97 TFLOPS FP16. The B65 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16. The RX 7400 has higher raw floating-point throughput despite its lower core count.

Power characteristics are also distinct. The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W and uses a single 6-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The B65 has a TDP of 200 W, uses a single 8-pin connector, and requires a suggested PSU of 550 W. The bus interfaces differ: the RX 7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the B65 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs vary, with the RX 7400 offering one HDMI 2.1a and three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the B65 offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 has an average benchmark score of 2467. The Intel Arc Pro B65 has no benchmark entries, so its average score is recorded as 0.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The RX 7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. The Arc Pro B65 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, which is four times the capacity.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The RX 7400 delivers 16.49 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Arc Pro B65 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS, which is lower.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The RX 7400 provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B65 provides 608.0 GB/s, more than double the RX 7400's figure.

Q: What are the power requirement differences?

A: The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Arc Pro B65 has a TDP of 200 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 7400 has 28 ray tracing cores. The Arc Pro B65 has 20 ray tracing cores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7400 | Intel Arc Pro B65 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe2-HPG |

| Generation | Navi III (RX 7000) | Battlemage (Pro Series) |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1452 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2300 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 2375 MHz, 19 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 608.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 112 | 160 |

| ROPs | 64 | 80 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 147.2 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 257.6 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 16.49 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 32.97 TFLOPS (2:1) | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 43 W | 200 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

| Release Date | 2025-08-07 | 2026-03-31 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between these two GPUs. The wins counters for both are zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. The RX 7400 does have standalone benchmark scores. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 1103. In Passmark tests, it scores 59 in DirectX 10, 97 in DirectX 11, 44 in DirectX 12, and 176 in DirectX 9. Its Passmark G2D score is 1209, and its G3D score is 11897. The GPU compute score is 5152.

The RX 7400's nearest rivals provide context. The AMD Radeon 8040S has an average score of 2440, which is 1.1% lower than the RX 7400. The NVIDIA GeForce 710M scores 2433, 1.4% lower. The Intel HD Graphics 610 scores 2425, 1.8% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M scores 2422, 1.9% lower. These deltas show that the RX 7400 is only marginally faster than these older or integrated parts.

The Arc Pro B65 has no comparable data. Its percentile of 50 is the only performance indicator available. This is a significant gap in the dataset. Without benchmark scores, direct numerical comparisons are impossible. The specification sheet, however, suggests the B65 is designed for a different role. Its 32 GB memory and 608.0 GB/s bandwidth are characteristic of professional or compute-oriented workloads, not typical gaming benchmarks.

The RX 7400's FP32 throughput of 16.49 TFLOPS exceeds the B65's 12.29 TFLOPS. In rasterization-heavy tasks, the RX 7400 might have an edge. The B65 counters with higher pixel rate (192.0 GPixel/s versus 147.2 GPixel/s) and higher texture rate (384.0 GTexel/s versus 257.6 GTexel/s). These metrics indicate the B65 has a faster fill rate, which matters for high-resolution rendering and multi-sample anti-aliasing.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7400 wins on compute throughput. Its 16.49 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.97 TFLOPS FP16 are higher than the B65's 12.29 and 24.58 TFLOPS, respectively. This gives it an advantage in general-purpose shader work and FP16-accelerated tasks. It also has more ray tracing cores (28 versus 20), which could benefit ray-traced effects in supported titles. Its power envelope is dramatically lower at 43 W versus 200 W, and its suggested PSU is 200 W versus 550 W. For systems with limited power delivery, the RX 7400 is the only viable option.

The RX 7400 also has the only verified benchmark data. Its Passmark G3D score of 11897 and average score of 2467 are concrete numbers. The B65 has none. In any comparison relying on measured performance, the RX 7400 is the sole data point.

The Arc Pro B65 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 32 GB GDDR6 pool is four times larger than the RX 7400's 8 GB. Its 608.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the RX 7400's 288.0 GB/s. This makes it suited for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and memory-intensive compute workloads. Its 256-bit bus width, compared to 128-bit, contributes to this advantage.

The B65 also has a higher pixel rate (192.0 GPixel/s versus 147.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (384.0 GTexel/s versus 257.6 GTexel/s). These metrics suggest faster output to the display and faster texture filtering. Its 2560 shading units and 160 TMUs outnumber the RX 7400's 1792 and 112, giving it more parallel execution resources in certain workloads. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides more host bandwidth than the RX 7400's PCIe 4.0 x8, which matters for data transfer from system memory.

The B65's production status is recorded as "Active," while the RX 7400's is not specified. The B65 also has a later release date of 2026-03-31 compared to the RX 7400's 2025-08-07. The B65 is the newer part. Its 5 nm process and higher transistor density (72.1M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm²) indicate a more advanced manufacturing node. The RX 7400, with its lower power draw and smaller die, is positioned for efficiency. The B65, with its large memory pool and high bandwidth, is positioned for capacity. The absence of B65 benchmarks means its actual performance remains unverified, but its specifications point toward a professional or workstation-oriented design.