Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The data shows a decisive generational shift in the mobile and entry-level desktop GPU space. The Intel Arc A310 completely outclasses the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M in raw compute benchmarks, despite the Quadro's legacy as a high-end professional part. The only shared benchmark point, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a 234% performance advantage for the Intel part, reflecting nearly a decade of architectural evolution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head data point available is a landslide victory for the Intel Arc A310. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A310 scores 30,607 points against the Quadro K4100M's 9,149 points. This represents a delta of -70.1% from the perspective of the NVIDIA part, meaning the Quadro K4100M delivers less than a third of the Intel card's compute throughput. The gap is not marginal; it is a chasm that no driver optimization or workload tuning could bridge.

This result is consistent with the broader benchmark averages. The Intel Arc A310's average benchmark score across all tests is 7,550, while the Quadro K4100M averages 7,906. Interestingly, the Quadro's average is slightly higher, but this is misleading. The NVIDIA part has only two benchmark entries (Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL), whereas the Intel part has nine entries, including several Passmark tests where it scores in the low hundreds. The Arc A310's Passmark DirectX 10, 11, and 12 scores are 31, 33, and 29 respectively, which are low raw numbers. However, its Passmark G3D score of 5,433 and GPU Compute score of 2,157 are substantial, and its Geekbench Vulkan score reaches 28,964.

The Quadro K4100M's Geekbench Metal score of 6,662 is its only other result. When placed in the context of its nearest rivals, the Quadro K4100M's average sits between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7,925, -0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8,039, -1.7% delta). This indicates that despite its age, the Quadro held its own against mid-range parts of its era. The Intel Arc A310, conversely, sees its average score compared to the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557, -0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, +1% delta). The Arc A310 is statistically tied with these parts in overall average, but the Geekbench OpenCL result shows its peak compute is far higher.

The percentile rankings reinforce the story of two parts from different worlds. The Quadro K4100M sits at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A310 is at the 40th. Despite the massive OpenCL victory, the Intel part ranks slightly lower overall due to its weak legacy DirectX performance. The Quadro's consistent, if unspectacular, scores across its limited tests keep it competitive in aggregate. The Arc A310's highs are higher, but its lows are much lower.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous for any compute-focused workload: the Intel Arc A310 is the superior product. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 30,607 versus 9,149 is a 3.3x advantage. The data shows that the Arc A310's architecture, despite having fewer shading units (768 vs. 1,152), delivers far more effective throughput. The Quadro K4100M is an end-of-life part from 2013, and its Kepler architecture is simply obsolete for modern parallel compute.

However, the Quadro K4100M is not without a niche. Its average benchmark score (7,906) is higher than the Arc A310's (7,550), and its nearest rivals include the Quadro P5000, a much newer professional card. The Quadro's performance profile is more consistent; it does not have the dramatic single-digit scores that drag down the Intel part's average. For users running legacy OpenGL or DirectX 11 applications, the Quadro's 4.6 OpenGL support and DirectX 12 (11_0) API level may offer more predictable compatibility, though the Arc A310 matches OpenGL 4.6 and exceeds DirectX with 12 Ultimate (12_2).

The pick is clear. The Intel Arc A310 wins on raw compute power, modern API support (Vulkan 1.4 vs. 1.2.175), and dramatically better power efficiency (30 W TDP vs. 100 W). The Quadro K4100M wins only on aggregate benchmark consistency and a higher average score in its limited test set. For anyone choosing between these two today, the Arc A310 is the logical choice unless specific legacy software requires the NVIDIA ecosystem.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Arc A310: Compute and Modern APIs

The Arc A310 wins the only direct compute comparison by 70.1%. Its FP32 throughput is 2.688 TFLOPS versus the Quadro's 1.627 TFLOPS, a 65% advantage. The Arc also has dedicated ray tracing cores (6) and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), making it suitable for modern gaming workloads. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 124.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, despite a narrower 64-bit bus, thanks to faster GDDR6 memory running at 15.5 Gbps effective. The pixel rate is also higher (28.00 GPixel/s vs. 16.94 GPixel/s).

NVIDIA Quadro K4100M: Legacy Consistency and Texture Throughput

The Quadro K4100M wins on texture fill rate, delivering 67.78 GTexel/s against the Arc A310's 56.00 GTexel/s. This is due to its higher number of TMUs (96 vs. 32). Its average benchmark score is also 4.5% higher than the Arc A310's (7,906 vs. 7,550). The Quadro's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 880M and GTX 650 Ti, indicating it was a solid performer for its generation. It also has a wider 256-bit memory bus, which can benefit certain bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though the actual bandwidth is lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A310 is significantly faster, scoring 30,607 points compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M's 9,149 points. This is a 70.1% delta in favor of the Intel part.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a higher average benchmark score of 7,906, while the Arc A310 averages 7,550. However, the Quadro only has two benchmark results, while the Arc has nine, including some low legacy DirectX scores.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both have 4 GB of memory, but the Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Arc uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Intel Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has a TDP of 30 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W. The Arc A310 also has a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the Quadro has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Does the Quadro K4100M support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro K4100M has no ray tracing cores (null in the data), while the Intel Arc A310 has 6 RT cores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by nine years of silicon progress. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Intel Arc A310 uses the DG2-128 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, also from TSMC but on a 6 nm node. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a density of 45.9M per mm²—nearly four times denser.

The compute configuration differs substantially. The Quadro has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Arc A310 has fewer of each: 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, the Arc adds 6 RT cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely. The clock speeds tell a similar story of evolution: the Quadro runs at a base and boost of 706 MHz, while the Arc runs at a flat 1,750 MHz. This 2.5x clock advantage helps the Arc achieve 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 performance against the Quadro's 1.627 TFLOPS. The Arc also supports FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the Quadro does not list.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) for 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, clocked at 1,937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), achieving 124.0 GB/s. The narrower bus is compensated by much faster memory. The interface also differs: the Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus, while the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Arc supports four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, whereas the Quadro's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M | Intel Arc A310 |

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

| Chip | GK104 | DG2-128 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 1,750 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 1,750 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) | 1,937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 124.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,152 | 768 |

| TMUs | 96 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| RT Cores | None | 6 |

| FP32 Performance | 1.627 TFLOPS | 2.688 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None listed | 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2022-10-11 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | 1,499 USD | None listed |