Intel Arc A350M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z Comparison

The Intel Arc A350M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z are two end-of-life graphics cards from different eras, and the benchmark data shows a clear split: the GTX TITAN Z wins the OpenCL workload, while the Arc A350M dominates in Vulkan. The average benchmark scores are close—24,647 for the Arc A350M versus 23,736 for the GTX TITAN Z—but the distribution of wins reveals a stark contrast in API compatibility and architectural strengths. The data indicates that neither card is universally superior; instead, the choice hinges on which application programming interface and workload type matters more to the user.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX TITAN Z takes the OpenCL crown, scoring 25,465 against the Arc A350M's 24,546. That is a 3.6% advantage for the older Kepler-based card, which is notable given its 2014 release date. In this specific test, the GTX TITAN Z's raw compute throughput, backed by 2,880 shading units and 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, proves decisive. The Arc A350M, with only 768 shading units and 3.379 TFLOPS, cannot match that level of raw shader output in OpenCL, where the TITAN Z's older architecture still executes efficiently.

The Arc A350M wins decisively in Vulkan, scoring 24,747 against the GTX TITAN Z's 22,006. That is a 12.5% margin, showcasing the modern Xe-HPG architecture's superior handling of Vulkan's API. The GTX TITAN Z only supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Arc A350M supports Vulkan 1.4, and this generational API gap translates directly into a performance advantage. The Arc A350M also benefits from 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent on the TITAN Z, which likely contributes to its Vulkan lead in workloads that leverage modern rendering features.

The win split is exactly even at one benchmark each, but the magnitude differs. The GTX TITAN Z's OpenCL victory is narrow at 3.6%, while the Arc A350M's Vulkan victory is a substantial 12.5%. This asymmetry matters: the Arc A350M's win is more pronounced, suggesting that in Vulkan-based applications, the modern architecture offers a clearer performance edge than the TITAN Z's advantage in OpenCL. For users running older OpenCL compute tasks, the TITAN Z is the better choice; for Vulkan gaming or modern compute, the Arc A350M pulls ahead.

The Verdict

The data points to a nuanced conclusion: pick the GTX TITAN Z for OpenCL-heavy workloads, and pick the Arc A350M for Vulkan-based tasks. The GTX TITAN Z's OpenCL score of 25,465 not only beats the Arc A350M but also places it in the 69th percentile of all GPUs, just one percentile behind the Arc A350M's 70th percentile. The average benchmark score tells a similar story—the Arc A350M averages 24,647, which is 3.8% higher than the TITAN Z's 23,736, but this is driven entirely by the Vulkan result.

For a user prioritizing modern gaming or compute with Vulkan, the Arc A350M is the clear winner. Its 12.5% Vulkan lead is decisive, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the TITAN Z's DirectX 12 (11_1) means it handles the latest graphics features. The Arc A350M also offers a dramatically lower power draw, with a 25 W TDP compared to the TITAN Z's 375 W, making it viable for systems where power efficiency is critical. However, the GTX TITAN Z compensates with more memory—6 GB versus 4 GB—and a much wider 384-bit memory bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth against the Arc A350M's 112.0 GB/s.

The GTX TITAN Z is the choice for OpenCL compute or legacy applications. Its 3.6% OpenCL win is consistent with its higher FP32 throughput and larger memory bandwidth, which benefit data-heavy compute tasks. That said, the TITAN Z's triple-slot cooler, 2x 8-pin power connectors, and 750 W suggested PSU make it a physically demanding card, whereas the Arc A350M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors. The verdict is clear: the Arc A350M is the modern, efficient pick for Vulkan; the GTX TITAN Z is the legacy brute for OpenCL.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX TITAN Z scores 25,465 against the Arc A350M's 24,546, a delta of -3.6% for the Arc A350M. This win is modest but consistent with the TITAN Z's hardware advantages: 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs dwarf the Arc A350M's 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The TITAN Z also has a 384-bit memory bus, enabling 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is three times the Arc A350M's 112.0 GB/s. The 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 performance on the TITAN Z is 49% higher than the Arc A350M's 3.379 TFLOPS, and in OpenCL this raw compute muscle translates into the observed lead.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc A350M scores 24,747 against the GTX TITAN Z's 22,006, a 12.5% delta in favor of Intel. This is a significant margin, and it stems from architectural modernity. The Arc A350M uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the TITAN Z uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process. The Arc A350M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the TITAN Z is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175, and the Arc A350M's 6 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration that the TITAN Z lacks entirely. The result is a Vulkan score that is not just higher but substantially so, indicating that the Arc A350M handles modern graphics APIs far more efficiently.

Comparing these results to nearest rivals adds context. The Arc A350M's average score of 24,647 sits within 1.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24,277) and just 0.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744). The GTX TITAN Z's average of 23,736 is 0.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile (23,628) and 1.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 6800S (24,063). This means that while the TITAN Z wins OpenCL, its overall average is lower, and the Arc A350M's Vulkan strength raises its profile. The head-to-head data confirms that the Arc A350M is the more balanced performer across APIs, while the TITAN Z is specialized for the older OpenCL path.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has an average benchmark score of 24,647, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z averages 23,736, making the Arc A350M approximately 3.8% higher overall.

Q: Why does the GTX TITAN Z win in OpenCL?

A: The GTX TITAN Z scores 25,465 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Arc A350M's 24,546, a 3.6% lead. This is attributed to its higher FP32 performance of 5.046 TFLOPS and 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, which are 49% and 200% higher than the Arc A350M's figures, respectively.

Q: Why does the Arc A350M win in Vulkan?

A: The Arc A350M scores 24,747 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the GTX TITAN Z's 22,006, a 12.5% margin. The Arc A350M supports Vulkan 1.4 and has 6 ray tracing cores, while the TITAN Z only supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Arc A350M has a TDP of 25 W and is an IGP with no power connectors, while the GTX TITAN Z has a TDP of 375 W, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 750 W, making the TITAN Z 15 times more power-hungry.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The GTX TITAN Z has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 112.0 GB/s. The TITAN Z offers 50% more memory and 200% more bandwidth.

Q: How do the cards compare in percentile ranking?

A: The Arc A350M is in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX TITAN Z is in the 69th percentile, indicating that the Arc A350M sits slightly higher in the overall performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A350M is built on the DG2-128 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation for Arc 3 Mobile. It is fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The architecture includes 6 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The memory subsystem uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, and the card is an IGP with a 25 W TDP.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z is based on the GK110B chip using the Kepler architecture, part of the GeForce 700 generation. It is built on a 28 nm TSMC process with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of only 12.6M per mm². The Kepler architecture has no ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Memory is 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, and the card is a triple-slot design with a 375 W TDP and 2x 8-pin power connectors.

The process node difference is stark: 6 nm versus 28 nm, which explains the Arc A350M's vastly higher transistor density (45.9M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm²) despite having only 120 million more transistors. The Arc A350M's support for ray tracing and newer API versions (Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175) reflects its modern design, while the TITAN Z's larger die and higher FP32 throughput reflect its compute-heavy legacy. The bus interface also differs: the Arc A350M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the TITAN Z uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The Arc A350M has a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the GTX TITAN Z runs at 705 MHz base and 876 MHz boost, making the Arc A350M 63% higher in base clock and 151% higher in boost. Memory clocks are similar at 1750 MHz, but the effective data rate differs: the Arc A350M achieves 14 Gbps effective on GDDR6, while the TITAN Z achieves 7 Gbps on GDDR5.

Memory capacity and bus width favor the TITAN Z: 6 GB versus 4 GB, and 384-bit versus 64-bit. Bandwidth is 336.0 GB/s for the TITAN Z versus 112.0 GB/s for the Arc A350M. Shading units are 2880 versus 768, TMUs are 240 versus 48, and ROPs are 48 versus 24. The FP32 performance is 5.046 TFLOPS for the TITAN Z versus 3.379 TFLOPS for the Arc A350M, while the Arc A350M adds 6.758 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1) performance; the TITAN Z has no FP16 listing. Pixel rates are nearly identical at 52.56 GPixel/s for the TITAN Z and 52.80 GPixel/s for the Arc A350M, but texture rates differ: 210.2 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s.

Physical and power specifications diverge sharply. The TITAN Z is a triple-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 62 mm in width, with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 750 W suggested PSU. The Arc A350M is an IGP with no slot width, dimensions, or power connectors listed, and a TDP of just 25 W versus the TITAN Z's 375 W. Display outputs also differ: the TITAN Z has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Arc A350M's outputs are portable device dependent. The release dates are 2022-03-29 for the Arc A350M and 2014-05-27 for the TITAN Z, with the latter having a launch MSRP of 2,999 USD.