Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 and Intel Arc A310 sit at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The Quadro P5000, a 2016-era professional card built on the Pascal architecture, dominates the Arc A310 in nearly every traditional rasterization and compute test. However, the Arc A310, a 2022 Alchemist part, pulls off a decisive victory in one modern API workload, showing that architecture age is not the only factor. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, the specifications, and the use cases where each card makes sense.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows an overwhelming victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P5000, winning 8 out of 9 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The most significant margin comes in the PassMark DirectX 11 test, where the Quadro P5000 scores 102 against the Arc A310’s 33, a 209.1% advantage. This is a massive gap that indicates the Pascal architecture's strength in legacy DirectX workloads, which remain relevant in many professional CAD and engineering applications.

Compute performance tells a similar story. In the PassMark GPU Compute test, the Quadro P5000 scores 6508, while the Arc A310 manages only 2157, a 201.7% difference. The Quadro’s FP32 throughput of 8.873 TFLOPS versus the Arc A310’s 2.688 TFLOPS explains why the NVIDIA card is so far ahead in raw number-crunching tasks. This is reinforced by the Geekbench OpenCL result, where the Quadro P5000 scores 52509 versus 30607 for the Arc A310, a 71.6% lead.

The DirectX 10 and DirectX 9 tests also show decisive wins for the Quadro P5000, with margins of 148.4% (77 vs 31) and 146.4% (170 vs 69), respectively. Even in DirectX 12, where newer architectures typically excel, the Quadro P5000 retains a 51.7% lead (44 vs 29). The PassMark G3D score follows the same pattern: 12634 for the Quadro P5000 versus 5433 for the Arc A310, a 132.5% difference. The only minor win for NVIDIA is in the 2D test, where the Quadro P5000 scores 674 versus 625, a modest 7.8% edge.

The single victory for the Intel Arc A310 is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, and it is a substantial one. The Arc A310 scores 28964, while the Quadro P5000 manages only 6342. This represents a 78.1% lead for Intel. This result is highly significant because it highlights the Arc A310’s modern Xe-HPG architecture, which has native support for hardware ray tracing and newer Vulkan features that the Pascal architecture lacks. The Quadro P5000’s Vulkan score is so low that it suggests driver-level inefficiencies or architectural limitations in this specific API.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 has a higher average benchmark score of 8039, placing it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Arc A310 has an average score of 7550, which puts it in the 40th percentile.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare to each card?

A: The Quadro P5000’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M, which has an average score of 8040, a 0% delta. The Arc A310’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 250, which scores 7557, a -0.1% delta. Interestingly, the Arc A310 also sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which scores 7472, putting the Arc A310 1% ahead.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes more power?

A: The Quadro P5000 has a TDP of 180 W and requires a 450 W power supply, along with a single 8-pin power connector. The Arc A310 has a TDP of 30 W, requires only a 200 W power supply, and needs no external power connectors.

Q: What are the display output capabilities?

A: The Quadro P5000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Intel Arc A310 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, which is a more modern standard.

Q: Which card supports hardware ray tracing?

A: Only the Intel Arc A310 has dedicated ray tracing cores, with 6 RT cores listed. The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 does not list any RT cores, as it predates the RTX architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the clear winner for professional workloads that rely on legacy DirectX APIs and heavy compute. Its 209.1% lead in DirectX 11 and 201.7% lead in GPU compute make it the obvious choice for applications like older CAD software, simulation tools, and any workflow that uses OpenCL for general-purpose processing. The 16 GB of VRAM is also a major advantage for handling large datasets, complex 3D models, or high-resolution textures without running out of memory. The PassMark G3D score of 12634 indicates strong overall rasterization performance, which is still relevant for many professional visualization tasks.

The Intel Arc A310 wins decisively in the Vulkan API, with a 78.1% lead over the Quadro P5000. This makes it the better choice for modern game engines and applications that are built around Vulkan, particularly those that leverage hardware ray tracing. The presence of 6 RT cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) means it is future-proofed for newer graphics features. Its much lower power draw of 30 W also makes it suitable for small form factor systems or low-power workstations where the Quadro’s 180 W TDP would be problematic. The Arc A310’s 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs also provide a more modern display connectivity option.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in nearly every core specification. The Quadro P5000 uses the GP104 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The Arc A310 uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Both have the same transistor count of 7,200 million, but the Arc A310 packs them into a much smaller die size of 157 mm² versus the Quadro’s 314 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 45.9M / mm² for Intel versus 22.9M / mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds are similar in boost, with the Quadro P5000 boosting to 1733 MHz and the Arc A310 boosting to 1750 MHz. However, the base clock differs, with the Quadro at 1607 MHz and the Arc at 1750 MHz. The memory subsystem is vastly different: the Quadro has 16 GB of GDDR5X at 9 Gbps effective, while the Arc has 4 GB of GDDR6 at 15.5 Gbps effective. The Quadro’s 256-bit bus width gives it 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the Arc’s 124.0 GB/s from its 64-bit bus.

The execution units also differ widely. The Quadro P5000 has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Arc A310 has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This results in the Quadro having a pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 277.3 GTexel/s, versus the Arc’s 28.00 GPixel/s and 56.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 8.873 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 2.688 TFLOPS for the Arc. For FP16, the Quadro is severely limited at 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Arc achieves 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1), a huge difference in favor of Intel for half-precision workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architecture generational gap is the primary driver of the performance differences. The Quadro P5000 is based on Pascal, which was designed for the professional market in 2016. It has no dedicated ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. Its FP16 performance is heavily crippled at a 1:64 ratio, meaning it is not designed for AI or machine learning workloads that rely on half-precision math. The Pascal architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1) but not the Ultimate feature set.

The Intel Arc A310 is based on the Xe-HPG architecture, which is modern and purpose-built for gaming and graphics. It includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, which enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading. Its FP16 performance is strong at a 2:1 ratio, making it far more capable for compute tasks that use half-precision. The Arc A310 also supports Vulkan 1.4, matching the Quadro, but with a much more capable implementation, as evidenced by the Vulkan benchmark results. The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the superior card for traditional professional graphics and compute tasks. With an 8-to-1 win record in the head-to-head benchmarks, it is the only choice for users who rely on DirectX 11, DirectX 9, or OpenCL-based applications. The 16 GB of VRAM and 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth are critical for large-scale visualization, and the FP32 throughput of 8.873 TFLOPS is exactly what is needed for heavy simulation workloads. The Quadro P5000’s average benchmark score of 8039, which is 489 points higher than the Arc’s 7550, confirms its overall performance advantage.

The Intel Arc A310 is the better choice for a very specific set of use cases. If a user’s primary software stack is built on Vulkan, the Arc A310’s 78.1% lead in that benchmark makes it the faster card. The inclusion of ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate also makes it a more future-proof option for new gaming or rendering applications. The Arc’s low 30 W power draw is also a significant advantage for ultra-compact systems or silent builds. However, its 4 GB of VRAM is a limiting factor for modern textures, and its average score of 7550 is below the Quadro’s, indicating that in most scenarios, the older NVIDIA card is simply faster. For the vast majority of professional and general-purpose workloads, the Quadro P5000 is the data-backed winner. The Arc A310 is only preferable when Vulkan performance or low power consumption is the absolute priority.