Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Comparison

Intel Arc A310 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, separated by a decade of architecture evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, and it is a decisive one: in Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A310 scores 30,607 points against the GTX 680M’s 9,230, a 231.6% advantage for the Intel part. This is not a close contest; the Arc A310 more than triples the older NVIDIA GPU’s compute throughput in this specific test. The GTX 680M, for its part, has no benchmark wins in the provided data, making the head-to-head comparison a one-sided affair.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Intel Arc A310’s score of 30,607 dwarfs the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M’s 9,230. The delta of 231.6% tells the story clearly: the Arc A310 is not merely faster, it is in a different performance class for this workload. This result aligns with the broader benchmark averages—the Arc A310’s average benchmark score is 7,550, while the GTX 680M’s is 7,023—though the OpenCL gap is far larger than the average gap suggests.

The OpenCL result is particularly striking because it reflects raw compute capability, where the Arc A310’s modern architecture excels. The GTX 680M, with its Kepler design from 2012, simply cannot match the throughput of the newer Intel GPU. While the average benchmark scores are closer (7,550 vs 7,023, a difference of only 7.5%), the OpenCL test exposes a massive gulf in compute-oriented tasks. This suggests that the Arc A310’s advantage is not uniform across all workloads; instead, it is heavily weighted toward compute-heavy applications that can leverage its architecture.

In other benchmark categories, the data does not provide direct head-to-head results, but the individual scores are telling. The Arc A310 shows strong performance in PassMark G3D (5,433) and Geekbench Vulkan (28,964), while the GTX 680M has no comparable results in these tests. The GTX 680M does have a Geekbench Metal score of 4,815, a test the Arc A310 does not appear in, highlighting platform-specific differences. Overall, the head-to-head data paints a picture of a newer architecture decisively outperforming an older one, at least in the one test where they are directly compared.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 wins the only direct comparison, but the data suggests distinct strengths for each GPU based on their benchmark profiles. The Arc A310’s compute performance is its standout feature, as evidenced by its OpenCL score of 30,607 and Vulkan score of 28,964. These numbers indicate strong performance in compute-heavy workloads such as OpenCL-based rendering or Vulkan compute tasks. Its PassMark G3D score of 5,433 also positions it well for general 3D graphics, although its DirectX scores are surprisingly low (29-33 in DirectX 10/11/12), which may indicate driver maturity issues or architectural inefficiencies in legacy API paths.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M, despite its age, shows a different profile. Its Geekbench Metal score of 4,815 suggests it retains some utility in Apple’s Metal API, where the Arc A310 has no data. Its OpenCL score of 9,230, while far below the Arc A310, is still respectable for a 2012 GPU. The GTX 680M’s average benchmark score of 7,023 is only 7% lower than the Arc A310’s 7,550, implying that in mixed workloads—perhaps those that do not heavily utilize the Arc A310’s compute strengths—the two GPUs are much closer in performance.

For use-case segmentation, the Arc A310 is clearly the pick for compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL acceleration or Vulkan-based workloads. The GTX 680M, however, may hold an edge in legacy DirectX applications or Metal-based environments, where the Arc A310’s low DirectX scores (29-33) and lack of Metal support are handicaps. The GTX 680M’s higher texture rate (84.90 GTexel/s vs 56.00 GTexel/s) and ROP count (32 vs 16) also suggest it could outperform the Arc A310 in fill-rate-limited scenarios, even if the data does not provide a direct benchmark to confirm this.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has an average benchmark score of 7,550, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M’s average is 7,023. The Arc A310 is ahead by approximately 7.5%.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A310 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Arc A310 scores 30,607 compared to the GTX 680M’s 9,230, a 231.6% advantage for the Intel GPU.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M have any benchmark wins over the Intel Arc A310?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the GTX 680M has zero wins, while the Arc A310 has one win.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU against all GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A310 is in the 40th percentile, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M is in the 39th percentile. They are nearly adjacent in overall ranking.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API?

A: Both support Vulkan, but with different versions. The Intel Arc A310 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

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

A: The Intel Arc A310 has a memory bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M has a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Arc A310 is slightly ahead, despite the GTX 680M having a wider 256-bit bus.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal fundamental differences in design philosophy. The Intel Arc A310 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M also has 4 GB of memory, but it is GDDR5 on a much wider 256-bit bus, resulting in 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the wider bus, the GTX 680M’s slower memory clock (900 MHz vs 1937 MHz) means it falls behind in bandwidth.

The clock speeds are starkly different. The Arc A310 runs at a base and boost of 1750 MHz, while the GTX 680M runs at 719 MHz base and 758 MHz boost. This clock advantage helps the Arc A310 achieve a higher pixel rate (28.00 GPixel/s vs 21.22 GPixel/s) and FP32 throughput (2.688 TFLOPS vs 2.038 TFLOPS). However, the GTX 680M counters with more shading units (1344 vs 768), TMUs (112 vs 32), and ROPs (32 vs 16), which explains its higher texture rate (84.90 GTexel/s vs 56.00 GTexel/s).

Power and form factor also diverge. The Arc A310 has a TDP of 30 W and is a single-slot design with no power connectors, while the GTX 680M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor. The Arc A310 is a PCIe 4.0 x8 card, whereas the GTX 680M uses MXM-B (3.0) interface. Display outputs differ as well: the Arc A310 offers four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the GTX 680M’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous. The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture using TSMC’s 6 nm process, packing 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M uses the Kepler architecture on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: 45.9 million transistors per mm² for the Arc A310 versus 12.0 million for the GTX 680M, a 3.8x difference in density.

The Intel chip is the DG2-128, part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3), while the GTX 680M is based on the GK104 chip from the GeForce 600M generation. The Arc A310 features 6 ray tracing cores, a capability the GTX 680M lacks entirely. The Arc A310 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 680M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Vulkan support is also newer on the Intel side (1.4 vs 1.2.175), but OpenGL support is identical at 4.6.

The memory architectures highlight the generational leap. The Arc A310 uses GDDR6 with an effective data rate of 15.5 Gbps, while the GTX 680M uses GDDR5 at 3.6 Gbps effective. The Intel GPU also supports FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the GTX 680M has no FP16 capability listed. These architectural differences explain why the Arc A310 dominates in compute benchmarks despite having fewer shading units.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the Intel Arc A310 is the superior GPU for modern compute workloads. Its 231.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and higher average benchmark score (7,550 vs 7,023) make it the clear choice for anyone prioritizing compute performance. The Arc A310 also brings modern features like ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4 support, which the GTX 680M cannot offer. Its lower TDP (30 W vs 100 W) and smaller form factor make it more suitable for compact systems, though its single-slot design and lack of power connectors may limit some configurations.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M is not without merit, but its advantages are narrow. Its higher texture rate (84.90 GTexel/s) and more TMUs and ROPs suggest it could handle fill-rate-bound tasks better, though no direct benchmark confirms this. Its support for Metal (4,815 in Geekbench Metal) gives it a niche in Apple ecosystems, and its 256-bit memory bus, while slower in bandwidth, may offer better efficiency in certain access patterns. However, these strengths are overshadowed by the Arc A310’s overwhelming compute advantage and modern feature set.

For users with legacy DirectX applications or Metal-specific workloads, the GTX 680M might still serve a purpose. For anyone else, the Intel Arc A310 is the obvious pick, offering more than triple the OpenCL performance and a feature set that is a decade ahead. The percentile rankings (40th vs 39th) suggest the GTX 680M is not far behind in overall standings, but the head-to-head data reveals a yawning gap where it matters most. Choose the Arc A310 for future-proofing and compute; choose the GTX 680M only if you have specific compatibility needs that only Kepler can satisfy.