Intel Arc A350M vs Intel Arc A750 Comparison

Intel Arc A350M and Intel Arc A750 are both built on Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture, but they serve very different segments of the market. The A350M is a mobile-first, low-power part designed for thin-and-light laptops, while the A750 is a dual-slot desktop card aimed at mainstream gaming. The benchmark data shows a massive performance gulf between them, but the A350M’s efficiency profile and the A750’s raw throughput mean each has a distinct role. This analysis breaks down their architectural differences, measured performance, and the specific use cases where each GPU makes sense.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A750 than the Intel Arc A350M in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The A750 scores 98,554 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the A350M scores 24,546. This translates to the A750 being 75.1% ahead, as the delta percentage indicates the A350M trails by that margin.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A350M sits at the 70th percentile, while the Intel Arc A750 sits at the 66th percentile. Despite the A750’s higher raw scores, the A350M places better relative to its contemporaries in the database.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A750 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, offering four times the bus width and bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature set is identical, so software compatibility is not a differentiator.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The A350M has a TDP of 25 W, while the A750 has a TDP of 225 W. The A750 consumes nine times the power, which reflects its desktop orientation and much larger chip.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The A750 uses the DG2-512 chip with 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. The A350M uses the DG2-128 chip with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two Intel GPUs is substantial, starting with the silicon itself. The A350M uses the DG2-128 chip, while the A750 uses the DG2-512 chip, a designation that hints at the latter’s much larger scale. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 6 nm process, but the A750 packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, versus 7,200 million transistors in the A350M’s 157 mm² die. This results in a higher transistor density for the A750 at 53.4M per mm², compared to 45.9M per mm² for the A350M.

The execution resources scale accordingly. The A750 has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 112 raster output units. The A350M is far more modest, with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: the A750 has 28 ray tracing cores, while the A350M has only 6. Neither card has dedicated tensor cores, so AI acceleration relies on the standard Xe-HPG pipeline.

Clock speeds also differ notably. The A750 runs at a base clock of 2050 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz, while the A350M has a base of 1150 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz. The A750’s higher base clock is a significant advantage, as it sustains performance under load without relying solely on boost states. Memory clocks are faster on the A750 as well, with an effective speed of 16 Gbps versus 14 Gbps on the A350M.

The memory subsystem is where the gap becomes extreme. The A750’s 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the A350M’s 64-bit bus and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. This directly impacts fill rates and compute throughput. The A750 achieves 268.8 GPixel/s pixel rate and 537.6 GTexel/s texture rate, while the A350M manages 52.80 GPixel/s and 105.6 GTexel/s respectively. Floating point performance tells the same story: the A750 delivers 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 and 34.41 TFLOPS FP16, versus 3.379 TFLOPS and 6.758 TFLOPS on the A350M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct benchmark comparisons, both Geekbench tests, and the Intel Arc A750 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A750 scores 98,554 against the A350M’s 24,546. The delta percentage of -75.1% means the A350M trails by that amount, effectively making the A750 about four times faster in this compute-oriented workload.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar pattern but with a slightly smaller margin. The A750 posts 85,631 points, while the A350M manages 24,747. The delta here is -71.1%, so the A350M is roughly three and a half times slower. It is notably the A350M’s Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, while the A750’s OpenCL score is higher than its Vulkan score. This suggests the A750 has a more balanced driver optimization across APIs, whereas the A350M favors Vulkan for its execution.

The overall win tally is 2-0 in favor of the A750. There are no benchmark categories where the A350M comes out ahead, which aligns with the massive differences in silicon resources. The A750’s nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Arc B570, with a delta of 0.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, at 0.2%. The A350M’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 590 at -0.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile at -0.5%. This places the A350M in the same performance tier as older desktop cards, despite being a low-power mobile part.

Specification Differences

Several key specifications separate these two GPUs beyond the obvious performance gap. The bus interface differs, with the A350M using PCIe 4.0 x8 and the A750 using PCIe 4.0 x16. This gives the A750 double the bandwidth to the host system, which matters for data-heavy workloads. The power delivery is also distinct: the A750 requires a dual-slot cooler with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, plus a suggested PSU of 550 W. The A350M is an IGP-class part with no external power connectors and a 25 W TDP, making it suitable for integrated or low-power mobile designs.

Display outputs are another point of divergence. The A750 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the A350M’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop implementation. Memory capacity and bandwidth are already covered, but it is worth repeating that the A750’s 8 GB frame buffer is double the A350M’s 4 GB, which is critical for modern game textures and compute buffers.

The production status and release timing differ as well. The A350M launched on March 29, 2022, while the A750 arrived on October 11, 2022. Both are now end-of-life, but the A750 has a listed predecessor (Xe Graphics) and successor (Battlemage), while the A350M has neither. The A750 also has a launch MSRP of 289 USD, though this analysis does not weigh pricing considerations.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A750 wins every measured benchmark, but that does not make the A350M useless. The A350M’s strength lies in its power envelope and form factor. At 25 W, it can be integrated into laptops without active cooling or bulky heatsinks. Its 4 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p gaming at medium settings and light creative workloads. The A350M’s 70th percentile ranking among all GPUs shows it punches above its weight class relative to the broader GPU landscape, especially considering its low power draw.

The A750 is the clear choice for desktop builders who need sustained performance. Its 225 W TDP and dual-slot design allow for higher clock speeds and better thermal headroom. The 8 GB frame buffer and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth make it viable for 1440p gaming and GPU-accelerated rendering. The 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is roughly five times the A350M’s, so any compute-heavy task like video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific simulation will favor the A750 dramatically.

In terms of ecosystem fit, the A350M is ideal for ultraportable devices where battery life and thermals are paramount. It can handle esports titles and older games without issue. The A750, by contrast, is for a desktop rig with a robust power supply and adequate case airflow. It also benefits from the PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, which reduces data transfer bottlenecks in large workloads.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A750 is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark. Its closest rival in the database, the Intel Arc B570, is only 0.1% away in average score, and it sits alongside the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile in performance tier. The A750 is a legitimate desktop GPU for gamers and content creators who need high frame rates and fast compute.

The Intel Arc A350M, despite losing all head-to-head tests, occupies a valid niche. Its 25 W power draw and IGP form factor make it a practical choice for mobile devices where the A750 physically cannot fit. The A350M’s 70th percentile ranking is respectable, and its Vulkan score of 24,747 shows it can handle modern APIs competently. For a laptop user who prioritizes portability over raw performance, the A350M delivers acceptable results.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. A desktop builder with a 550 W PSU and space for a dual-slot card should pick the A750 without hesitation. A laptop buyer who needs a discrete GPU for light gaming and media work will find the A350M adequate. The 75.1% and 71.1% deltas in OpenCL and Vulkan, respectively, make the performance hierarchy clear, but the efficiency hierarchy favors the A350M. Choose based on your platform, not just the numbers.