Intel Arc A350M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Comparison

Intel Arc A350M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 are both end-of-life graphics solutions aimed at the entry-level segment, yet they represent fundamentally different approaches to that market. The Arc A350M is a mobile-first, integrated-class part built on Intel’s modern Xe-HPG architecture, while the GTX 1630 is a discrete, single-slot desktop card based on the older Turing design. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows a near-total statistical tie in average performance, with the Intel part scoring 24647 and the NVIDIA part scoring 24277, a difference of just 1.5%. However, the two chips achieve this parity through wildly different means, and their individual benchmark results reveal distinct strengths that could influence a buyer’s choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has a higher average benchmark score of 24647, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630’s score of 24277. This puts the Arc A350M 1.5% ahead of the GTX 1630 in the overall average, though both sit in the 70th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 wins the OpenCL test with a score of 24858, while the Intel Arc A350M scores 24546. That is a 1.3% advantage for the GTX 1630, making it the stronger choice for compute workloads that rely on this API.

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench Vulkan test, and by how much?

A: The Intel Arc A350M wins the Vulkan test decisively, scoring 24747 against the GTX 1630’s 23695. This represents a 4.4% lead for the Intel part, indicating a clear advantage in Vulkan-based applications or games.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each GPU, and what does that imply?

A: The Intel Arc A350M packs 7,200 million transistors on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 has 4,700 million transistors on a 12 nm TSMC process. The Intel chip achieves higher density (45.9M / mm² vs 23.5M / mm²) despite a smaller die size of 157 mm² versus 200 mm².

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No, they differ. The Intel Arc A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). This means the Intel part is compliant with the more advanced DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 has a higher boost clock at 1785 MHz, compared to the Intel Arc A350M’s boost of 2200 MHz. Wait — the Intel part actually has the higher boost clock at 2200 MHz, while the GTX 1630 boosts to 1785 MHz. The data shows Intel leads in raw clock speed.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs could not be more different in their underlying design philosophies. The Intel Arc A350M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process, and belongs to the Alchemist generation for mobile. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, along with 6 dedicated ray tracing cores. The chip, designated DG2-128, has a die size of 157 mm² and houses 7,200 million transistors, achieving a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. Its base clock is 1150 MHz with a boost of 2200 MHz, and it operates within a 25 W TDP, making it an integrated-class part (IGP) that is portable-device dependent for display outputs.

In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 uses the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm TSMC process, and is part of the GeForce 16 generation. It has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but notably lacks any ray tracing cores. The TU117 chip is larger at 200 mm² but contains fewer transistors — 4,700 million — resulting in a lower density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. Its base clock is 1740 MHz with a boost of 1785 MHz, and it draws 75 W TDP, requiring a single-slot cooler and no external power connectors. The GTX 1630 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) whereas the Arc A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), a meaningful feature gap for future titles.

Memory configurations are similar on the surface — both have 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus — but the Intel part runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) yielding 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA part runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) yielding 96.00 GB/s. The Arc A350M also has a higher theoretical pixel rate (52.80 GPixel/s vs 28.56 GPixel/s) and texture rate (105.6 GTexel/s vs 57.12 GTexel/s), along with double the FP32 throughput at 3.379 TFLOPS versus 1.828 TFLOPS. The Intel chip uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the GTX 1630 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the Intel Arc A350M is the more technically advanced part with a higher average benchmark score, superior raw compute specs, and a more modern feature set. It wins the Vulkan benchmark by 4.4% and offers ray tracing support, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and double the FP32 performance. For users who prioritize forward-looking APIs and higher theoretical throughput, the Arc A350M is the clear choice.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 is not without merit. It wins the OpenCL benchmark by 1.3%, and its higher base clock (1740 MHz vs 1150 MHz) suggests better sustained performance in certain legacy workloads. Its single-slot, low-power design (75 W TDP, no power connectors, 250 W suggested PSU) makes it a drop-in upgrade for older desktops, whereas the Arc A350M is an integrated part intended for mobile devices. The GTX 1630’s predecessor is GeForce 10 and its successor is GeForce 20, indicating a clear product line trajectory, while the Arc A350M stands alone in its generation.

For a desktop builder seeking a simple, low-profile card, the GTX 1630 is the safer, more conventional pick. For a laptop or ultra-mobile system where efficiency and modern features matter, the Arc A350M offers better long-term potential. The benchmark tie — 1.5% average difference — means neither is objectively superior; the choice depends on the platform and workload.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights the key fields where the two GPUs differ, drawn directly from the FACT PACK:

| Specification | Intel Arc A350M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Turing |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1150 MHz | 1740 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 1785 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| ROPs | 24 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 6 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 52.80 GPixel/s | 28.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 105.6 GTexel/s | 57.12 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.379 TFLOPS | 1.828 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 25 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 145 mm (5.7 in) x 69 mm (2.7 in) x 18 mm (0.7 in) |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a split decision. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 24858 against the Intel Arc A350M’s 24546, giving NVIDIA a 1.3% win. This is a narrow margin, but it suggests that the GTX 1630’s higher base clock (1740 MHz versus 1150 MHz) and mature driver stack may help in OpenCL-heavy applications like certain productivity tools or compute tasks.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a different story. Here, the Intel Arc A350M scores 24747 while the GTX 1630 manages only 23695, a 4.4% advantage for Intel. This is a more substantial gap, and it aligns with the Arc A350M’s modern architecture, higher FP32 throughput (3.379 TFLOPS vs 1.828 TFLOPS), and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate. Vulkan is often used in newer game engines, so this win could be more relevant for gaming.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Arc A350M edges ahead with 24647 versus 24277, a 1.5% difference. Both GPUs sit at the 70th percentile of all GPUs, and their nearest rivals include a mix of AMD and NVIDIA parts. For the Arc A350M, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24744, -0.4%), while the GTX 1630’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti (24236, 0.2%). Interestingly, both lists include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT — the Arc A350M is 0.8% ahead of it, and the GTX 1630 is 0.7% behind it.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A350M wins in scenarios that stress modern graphics features and raw compute throughput. Its Vulkan benchmark victory (24747 vs 23695) is the standout, suggesting it is better suited for games and applications that leverage Vulkan’s low-overhead design. The Arc A350M also has 6 ray tracing cores, which the GTX 1630 lacks entirely, making it the only option for ray-traced effects. Its higher memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s), double FP32 performance (3.379 TFLOPS vs 1.828 TFLOPS), and faster pixel/texture rates (52.80 GPixel/s and 105.6 GTexel/s vs 28.56 and 57.12) indicate it can handle more complex geometry and shader workloads. The 25 W TDP also makes it far more power-efficient, which is critical for thin-and-light laptops where the Arc A350M is designed to operate.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 wins in the OpenCL benchmark (24858 vs 24546), which points to strengths in compute tasks that are optimized for NVIDIA’s ecosystem. Its higher base clock (1740 MHz vs 1150 MHz) may provide better responsiveness in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive workloads. The GTX 1630 is also the only one with a discrete, single-slot form factor, measuring 145 mm by 69 mm by 18 mm, and it requires no external power connectors with a suggested PSU of 250 W. This makes it a plug-and-play option for existing desktop systems, whereas the Arc A350M is limited to portable devices with dependent display outputs. For legacy DirectX 12 (12_1) titles or OpenCL-based applications, the GTX 1630’s mature drivers and higher base clock could offer more consistent performance.