Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and Intel Arc A310 represent two very different generations of graphics hardware, separated by over seven years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data available for direct comparison shows a decisive performance advantage for the Intel solution, but the full picture involves more than just raw compute scores. The Quadro K1200, built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, is a professional workstation card from 2015, while the Arc A310 is Intel's entry-level discrete GPU from its Alchemist generation, aimed at the mainstream market. Their average benchmark scores place them in similar percentiles—43rd for the Quadro and 40th for the Arc—suggesting that while the Arc is faster in the specific tests available, both are positioned in the lower-to-mid range of overall GPU performance. This analysis will break down their head-to-head results, architectural differences, and the specific scenarios where each card holds an advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two cards is limited to two Geekbench tests, and the results are strikingly one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A310 scores 30,607, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 manages only 8,831. This represents a delta of -71.1% for the Quadro, meaning the Arc A310 is roughly 3.5 times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The OpenCL benchmark exercises general-purpose GPU compute, and the Arc's modern Xe-HPG architecture with its 768 shading units and higher clock speeds simply overwhelms the older Maxwell-based card, which has 512 shading units and a much lower boost clock.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though the margin is even wider. Here, the Arc A310 scores 28,964, compared to the Quadro K1200's 7,698, a delta of -73.4%. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that benefits from modern hardware design, and the Arc A310's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and its dedicated ray tracing cores give it a substantial advantage in this test. The Quadro K1200, with its older Maxwell architecture and DirectX 12 (11_0) support, is clearly not designed for the same workload profile. Across both benchmarks, the Intel card wins 2 out of 2 tests, leaving the Quadro with zero wins in this head-to-head comparison.

It is worth remembering the average benchmark scores for these two cards are closer than the head-to-head results suggest. The Quadro K1200 has an average score of 8,265, while the Arc A310 averages 7,550. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the Arc A310's average is pulled down by additional benchmarks not shared with the Quadro, including Passmark tests where it scores 5,433 in G3D and 2,157 in GPU compute. The Quadro's average is based solely on its two Geekbench scores. When looking at their nearest rivals, the Quadro K1200 sits within 1.7% of cards like the AMD Radeon R9 M375X and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, while the Arc A310 is within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and just 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. This indicates that while the Arc is faster in the tests we have, its overall performance class is still entry-level.

The Verdict

From the data available, the Intel Arc A310 is the clear performance winner in compute and modern graphics API workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are dramatically higher than the Quadro K1200's, making it the obvious choice for anyone prioritizing raw performance in these specific benchmarks. The Arc A310 also offers a more modern feature set, including support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is a significant advantage for gaming and future-proofing. Its higher pixel rate (28.00 GPixel/s vs 16.53 GPixel/s) and texture rate (56.00 GTexel/s vs 33.06 GTexel/s) further underscore its superior throughput capabilities.

However, the Quadro K1200 should not be dismissed entirely. Its average benchmark score of 8,265 is actually higher than the Arc A310's average of 7,550, which suggests that in the specific tests that contribute to its average, it performs competitively. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, a high-end card from its era, and it sits only 1.2% behind that card's average score. This indicates that the Quadro K1200 was a capable professional card for its time, and in certain legacy workstation applications that rely on OpenGL or older compute APIs, it may still hold its own. The Arc A310's Passmark DirectX 9 score of 69 and DirectX 10 score of 31 are notably low, suggesting that its drivers or hardware are not optimized for older API workloads.

For the majority of users, the Intel Arc A310 is the better purchase based on this data. It offers significantly higher compute performance, modern API support, and a lower TDP of 30 W compared to the Quadro's 45 W. For those in need of a legacy professional card for specific older software, the Quadro K1200 might still be relevant, but the benchmark evidence points decisively toward the Arc A310 for any modern workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The Intel Arc A310 scores 30,607 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is significantly higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K1200's score of 8,831.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A310 in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Arc A310 scores 28,964 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro K1200 scores 7,698. This represents a delta of -73.4% for the Quadro, making the Arc roughly 3.8 times faster.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has an average benchmark score of 8,265, while the Intel Arc A310 has an average score of 7,550.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has a transistor density of 45.9M / mm², which is much higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K1200's density of 12.6M / mm².

Q: Do both cards support the same Vulkan version?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and the Intel Arc A310 support Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has dedicated ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has 6 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has no ray tracing cores.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference between these two cards is their process node. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Arc A310 uses a much more advanced 6 nm process, also at TSMC. This translates to a massive difference in transistor count: the Quadro has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the Arc has 7,200 million transistors on a slightly larger 157 mm² die. Consequently, the transistor density jumps from 12.6M / mm² on the Quadro to 45.9M / mm² on the Arc.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The Quadro K1200 has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz, while the Arc A310 operates at a constant 1750 MHz for both base and boost. Memory configurations are similar in capacity—both have 4 GB—but the type and bandwidth differ. The Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Arc uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, which surprisingly offers higher bandwidth at 124.0 GB/s due to its faster effective speed of 15.5 Gbps. The Quadro's memory runs at 5 Gbps effective.

The compute units also differ, with the Quadro featuring 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Arc has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Arc also includes 6 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro lacks. Power consumption is lower on the Arc, with a TDP of 30 W compared to the Quadro's 45 W, though both suggest a 200 W power supply. The bus interface is another point of divergence: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Arc uses the newer PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are the same count (4x mini-DisplayPort), but the Quadro offers DisplayPort 1.2, while the Arc offers DisplayPort 2.0.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is based on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. Its API support includes DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a partial implementation of DirectX 12, and it has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The Quadro's predecessor is listed as Quadro Fermi, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell, placing it in a transitional period for NVIDIA's professional lineup.

In contrast, the Intel Arc A310 is based on the Xe-HPG architecture, using the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which is the full implementation of DirectX 12, including hardware ray tracing. The Arc has 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, which is a fundamental architectural feature absent from the Quadro. Its predecessor is Xe Graphics, and its successor is Battlemage, indicating it is part of Intel's first foray into discrete GPUs. The Arc also supports FP16 compute at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1), whereas the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability, and its FP32 performance is 2.688 TFLOPS compared to the Quadro's 1,057.8 GFLOPS.

The memory technology also reflects the architectural difference: the Quadro uses GDDR5, which was standard for its era, while the Arc uses the newer GDDR6. The Arc's smaller 64-bit memory bus is compensated by its much faster memory clock, resulting in higher bandwidth. These architectural differences explain the performance gap seen in the benchmarks, as the Arc's modern design is better suited to current and future software workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Arc A310 wins decisively in compute-heavy and modern graphics API workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 30,607 and Vulkan score of 28,964 are over 3.5 times higher than the Quadro's corresponding scores. This makes the Arc the clear choice for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU computing, such as video encoding, machine learning inference, or any application that utilizes Vulkan for rendering. Its higher pixel and texture rates also suggest better performance in rasterization-heavy tasks, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate makes it suitable for modern gaming.

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200, despite losing both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average benchmark score of 8,265 compared to the Arc's 7,550. This is because the Quadro's average is based on its two strong Geekbench results, while the Arc's average includes lower Passmark scores. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, and it is only 1.2% behind that card's average score, suggesting it remains competitive in certain legacy professional applications. Its OpenGL 4.6 support and older DirectX 12 (11_0) implementation may make it more compatible with older workstation software that has not been updated for newer architectures.

The Arc A310 also wins on power efficiency, with a TDP of 30 W versus the Quadro's 45 W. This lower power draw, combined with its higher performance, makes it a more efficient solution overall. However, for users with legacy software that relies on older APIs like DirectX 9 or 10, the Arc's Passmark scores of 69 and 31, respectively, are concerning, and the Quadro may be the safer choice in those specific scenarios. In summary, the Arc A310 is the winner for modern workloads, while the Quadro K1200 holds relevance only in niche legacy applications.