Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between these two GPUs, with each taking decisive victories in different workload categories. The Intel Arc A310 wins 4 of the 9 head-to-head tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins 5. The overall average benchmark score favors the Intel part, at 7550 versus 6481 for the Quadro, a gap of roughly 16.5% in the aggregate. However, the per-test results reveal that the NVIDIA card is far stronger in legacy DirectX workloads and general 3D rendering, while the Intel card dominates in modern compute and API-agnostic tests.

The biggest win for the Intel Arc A310 comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 30607 against 22920 for the Quadro M5000M. That is a 33.5% advantage, and it is the single largest margin in either direction across the entire comparison. The same pattern holds in Geekbench Vulkan, where Intel leads 28964 to 24875, a 16.4% edge. These two results indicate that the Arc A310's modern architecture translates into substantially better performance in compute-oriented and Vulkan-based workloads. The Intel card also wins the Passmark G2D test, scoring 625 versus 476, a 31.3% margin, which points to stronger 2D desktop and compositing performance. The DirectX 12 test is a dead heat, with both cards scoring exactly 29; the database assigns the win to Intel on the tie, but there is no measurable performance difference in that specific test.

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M answers back in the older DirectX API tests. In Passmark DirectX 9, it scores 119 against Intel's 69, a massive 42% advantage. DirectX 11 shows a similar story, with NVIDIA leading 54 to 33, a 38.9% margin. DirectX 10 is closer but still favors NVIDIA, 35 to 31, an 11.4% edge. These results suggest that the Maxwell 2.0 architecture retains strong driver optimization and hardware efficiency for legacy DirectX paths, which matters for older applications and compatibility-focused workflows. The Quadro also wins the two most holistic gaming-oriented tests. In Passmark G3D, it scores 7062 versus 5433, a 23.1% lead, and in Passmark GPU Compute it scores 2756 versus 2157, a 21.7% margin. The G3D result is particularly notable because it is a composite of multiple DirectX tests, and NVIDIA's strength in the older APIs carries the overall score.

The percentile rankings place the Intel Arc A310 at the 40th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro M5000M sits at the 37th percentile. That is a narrow gap, and it aligns with the average benchmark scores: Intel's 7550 average edges out NVIDIA's 6481. The nearest rivals for the Intel card include the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7557 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7580 (0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7472 (1% behind). The Quadro's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6476 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M at 6493 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M at 6513 (0.5% behind). Both cards sit in a crowded performance tier where small percentage differences separate adjacent products.

The head-to-head deltas also show that the margins are not symmetrical. Intel's wins in OpenCL and G2D are large, at 33.5% and 31.3% respectively, while its Vulkan win is a solid 16.4%. NVIDIA's wins are even larger in DirectX 9 and DirectX 11, at 42% and 38.9%, but its G3D and compute wins are more moderate, at 23.1% and 21.7%. The DirectX 10 result is the only NVIDIA win below 10%, at 11.4%. This distribution suggests that the choice between these two GPUs depends heavily on the software environment: modern compute and Vulkan favor Intel, while legacy DirectX and composite 3D favor NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has an average benchmark score of 7550, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M averages 6481. The Intel card also sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, three points above the Quadro's 37th percentile.

Q: How large is Intel's lead in OpenCL performance?

A: The Intel Arc A310 scores 30607 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 22920 for the Quadro M5000M. That is a 33.5% advantage, the largest single-test margin in this comparison.

Q: In which tests does the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M clearly outperform the Intel Arc A310?

A: The Quadro wins Passmark DirectX 9 by 42%, DirectX 11 by 38.9%, DirectX 10 by 11.4%, Passmark G3D by 23.1%, and Passmark GPU Compute by 21.7%. These are the five tests where NVIDIA comes out ahead.

Q: Do the two GPUs tie in any benchmark?

A: Yes, both cards score exactly 29 in Passmark DirectX 12. The database assigns the win to the Intel Arc A310 on the tie, but the measured performance is identical.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A310 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A310 is within 1% of the AMD Radeon R7 250 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (1% ahead). It also leads the AMD Radeon HD 8850M by 1.4%.

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro M5000M is nearly even with the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (0.1% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (0.2% behind). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M by 0.5% and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 by 1.1%.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear recommendation based on workload type. The Intel Arc A310 is the better choice for users running OpenCL compute tasks, Vulkan-based applications, or 2D desktop workloads. Its 33.5% lead in OpenCL and 16.4% lead in Vulkan are substantial margins that would be noticeable in real-world compute and modern API usage. The 31.3% advantage in G2D also points to smoother 2D rendering and compositing.

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the better choice for users whose software relies on older DirectX paths, particularly DirectX 9 and DirectX 11. The 42% and 38.9% margins in those tests are decisive, and the 23.1% lead in Passmark G3D suggests that the Quadro delivers stronger overall 3D rendering performance in mixed DirectX environments. The 21.7% lead in GPU compute also indicates that the Quadro remains competitive for compute tasks despite its older architecture.

The overall average benchmark score favors Intel, but that is driven largely by the OpenCL and Vulkan results. For gaming and legacy DirectX applications, the Quadro is the stronger performer. Neither card is a universal winner, and the choice should hinge on the specific API and workload mix of the target use case.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The Intel Arc A310 uses a DG2-128 chip built on TSMC's 6 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M uses a GM204 chip on TSMC's 28 nm process. The Intel chip packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 5,200 million transistors on a much larger 398 mm² die, yielding a density of only 13.1M per mm².

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro has twice the memory capacity and 29.4% more bandwidth, despite the older memory type.

The compute configurations also differ substantially. The Arc A310 has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The Quadro M5000M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores. The Quadro has double the shading units, triple the TMUs, and four times the ROPs. Clock speeds favor Intel: the Arc runs at 1750 MHz base and boost, while the Quadro runs at 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 67.26 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate favors NVIDIA at 100.9 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors NVIDIA at 3.229 TFLOPS versus 2.688 TFLOPS, while FP16 is only listed for Intel at 5.376 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Thermal and power specifications differ as well. The Arc A310 has a TDP of 30 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and carries a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Quadro M5000M has a TDP of 100 W, uses an MXM Module form factor, and has no listed suggested PSU. The bus interfaces are different: the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs also differ, with the Arc offering 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 and the Quadro being listed as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans multiple generations. The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, with the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, with the GM204 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation (Mx000M). The release dates reflect this gap: the Arc A310 launched in October 2022, while the Quadro M5000M launched in August 2015.

The process technology difference is significant. Intel uses TSMC's 6 nm node, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 28 nm node. This explains the transistor density gap: 45.9M per mm² for Intel versus 13.1M per mm² for NVIDIA. The Intel chip achieves 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, while the NVIDIA chip fits 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die.

Feature support marks another major divergence. The Arc A310 includes 6 ray tracing cores, a capability entirely absent from the Quadro M5000M. API support also differs: the Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Memory technology differs as well, with Intel using GDDR6 and NVIDIA using GDDR5, though the Quadro compensates with a wider 256-bit bus and higher total bandwidth.

The predecessor and successor lineage also differs. The Arc A310's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage. The Quadro M5000M's predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M. Both are end-of-life production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 wins in modern compute and API-agnostic workloads. Its 33.5% OpenCL advantage over the Quadro makes it the clear pick for OpenCL-based compute tasks, and its 16.4% Vulkan lead positions it well for Vulkan-native applications. The 31.3% G2D win indicates stronger 2D desktop performance, which benefits productivity and compositing workloads. The DirectX 12 tie at 29 points means the Arc is at least on par with the Quadro in the most current DirectX API, and the presence of 6 ray tracing cores gives it hardware support for ray-traced effects that the Quadro lacks entirely.

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins in legacy DirectX and composite 3D workloads. Its 42% DirectX 9 lead and 38.9% DirectX 11 lead make it the better option for older applications that rely on those APIs. The 23.1% Passmark G3D advantage reinforces this, as G3D aggregates multiple DirectX tests into a single 3D score. The 21.7% GPU compute win shows that the Quadro still handles compute workloads well despite its older architecture, and its 8 GB memory capacity provides more headroom for large datasets compared to the Arc's 4 GB.

For a user prioritizing modern APIs, compute acceleration, and 2D desktop responsiveness, the Intel Arc A310 is the stronger choice. For a user dealing with legacy DirectX applications, composite 3D rendering, or memory-heavy workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M delivers better measured performance. The two cards occupy adjacent performance tiers, but their strengths are almost perfectly complementary.