Intel Arc A350M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two GPUs, though the comparison is limited to two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 scores 172,758 against the Intel Arc A350M's 24,546, a 603.8% advantage. That is not a close contest; it is a generational chasm in raw compute throughput. The OpenCL test stresses general-purpose GPU compute, where the RTX 3090's massive shading unit count and memory bandwidth produce results that dwarf the Intel part.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, tells a similar story but with a narrower margin. The RTX 3090 delivers 53,927 points, while the Arc A350M manages 24,747, giving NVIDIA a 117.9% lead. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can sometimes reduce overhead and let smaller GPUs punch above their weight, yet even here the RTX 3090 more than doubles the Intel score. Across both recorded head-to-head tests, the RTX 3090 wins 2 out of 2, with no benchmark where the Arc A350M takes the lead.

These scores align with the average benchmark results in the database. The RTX 3090 holds an average score of 27,565 across all its recorded tests, placing it in the 73rd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile at 27,435 (0.5% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT at 27,425 (0.5% slower), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 at 27,839 (1% faster). The Intel Arc A350M, by contrast, averages 24,647 across its tests, sitting in the 70th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 590 at 24,744 (0.4% faster), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile at 24,763 (0.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT at 24,442 (0.8% slower). The percentile gap, 73 vs 70, understates the real-world difference: the RTX 3090's average score is 11.8% higher than the Arc A350M's, and in the shared Vulkan test the gap is nearly double that.

What stands out from the numbers is that the RTX 3090 does not just win; it wins by margins that make the Arc A350M look like a different product category entirely. In OpenCL, the NVIDIA card processes over 7 times as much work per unit time. In Vulkan, it processes over 2 times as much. The only caveat is that the Arc A350M has far fewer recorded benchmarks in the database, so its full picture is less complete. Still, on every directly comparable metric, the RTX 3090 dominates.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is the superior GPU by every measurable benchmark in this comparison. It wins both shared tests, holds a higher average score, and sits in a higher percentile among all GPUs. Anyone choosing between these two for compute-heavy workloads, high-resolution gaming, or professional rendering should select the RTX 3090 without hesitation.

The Intel Arc A350M is not without a role, but that role is narrow. Its 25 W TDP, IGP slot width, and lack of external power connectors indicate it is designed for thin-and-light laptops where power draw and physical space are critical constraints. The RTX 3090, with a 350 W TDP and triple-slot cooler, requires a desktop chassis with substantial airflow and a 750 W suggested PSU. If the use case demands a discrete GPU that fits in an ultraportable chassis and runs off the motherboard's power delivery, the Arc A350M is the only viable option of the two. But from a pure performance standpoint, the RTX 3090 is the clear winner in every recorded benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 averages 27,565 across all recorded tests, while the Intel Arc A350M averages 24,647. That is an 11.8% difference in favor of the RTX 3090.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 3090 in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The RTX 3090 scores 53,927 versus the Arc A350M's 24,747, a 117.9% lead. The NVIDIA GPU more than doubles the Intel GPU's Vulkan performance.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between these two GPUs?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 scores 172,758 against the Arc A350M's 24,546, a 603.8% advantage. This is the largest recorded delta in any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A350M win any benchmark against the RTX 3090?

A: No. Across the two head-to-head tests recorded in the database, the RTX 3090 wins both. The Arc A350M has zero wins in this comparison.

Q: How do these GPUs rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The RTX 3090 sits in the 73rd percentile, while the Arc A350M sits in the 70th percentile. The RTX 3090's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, which is 1% faster, while the Arc A350M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile, which is 0.5% faster.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX 3090 has 10,496 shading units, while the Arc A350M has 768. This 13.7x difference in shading unit count largely explains the massive compute performance gap.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ fundamentally in nearly every specification category. The RTX 3090 uses 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 936.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A350M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory capacity difference is 6x, and the bandwidth difference is 8.4x, both heavily favoring NVIDIA.

Clock speeds show a different pattern. The RTX 3090 has a base clock of 1395 MHz and a boost clock of 1695 MHz, while the Arc A350M has a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The Intel GPU boosts 505 MHz higher, but its far smaller execution resources cannot translate that clock advantage into competitive performance. Memory clocks also differ: the RTX 3090 runs at 1219 MHz with 19.5 Gbps effective, while the Arc A350M runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

Power and physical requirements are starkly different. The RTX 3090 has a 350 W TDP, a triple-slot cooler, a 1x 12-pin power connector, and a suggested 750 W PSU. The Arc A350M has a 25 W TDP, an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The RTX 3090 measures 336 mm in length, 140 mm in height, and 61 mm in width; the Arc A350M has no recorded dimensions, consistent with an integrated-style mobile part. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA, PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel. Display outputs are another differentiator: the RTX 3090 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Arc A350M is marked as "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The RTX 3090 is built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, implemented on a Samsung 8 nm process. It uses the GA102 chip, measuring 628 mm² with 28,300 million transistors, for a density of 45.1 million transistors per mm². The Arc A350M uses Intel's Xe-HPG architecture, implemented on a TSMC 6 nm process. Its DG2-128 chip measures 157 mm² with 7,200 million transistors, for a density of 45.9 million transistors per mm². Despite being a smaller and newer chip, the Intel part has only marginally higher transistor density.

The execution resources are wildly different. The RTX 3090 has 10,496 shading units, 328 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 82 RT cores, and 328 tensor cores. The Arc A350M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 6 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. The RTX 3090's pixel rate is 189.8 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 556.0 GTexel/s, versus 52.80 GPixel/s and 105.6 GTexel/s for the Arc A350M. FP32 throughput is 35.58 TFLOPS for NVIDIA and 3.379 TFLOPS for Intel; FP16 is 35.58 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) for NVIDIA and 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) for Intel. The RTX 3090's FP32 is 10.5x higher, and its FP16 is 5.3x higher.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature sets are identical. The RTX 3090 is part of the GeForce 30 series, released on 2020-08-31, with a predecessor in GeForce 20 and successor in GeForce 40. The Arc A350M is part of the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation, released on 2022-03-29, with no recorded predecessor or successor. Both are end-of-life products. The RTX 3090 had a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD; the Arc A350M has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3090 wins in every performance category the database measures. For compute workloads, its 10.5x FP32 advantage and 5.3x FP16 advantage make it suitable for rendering, scientific simulation, and machine learning inference. Its 936.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and 24 GB capacity handle large datasets and high-resolution textures without bottlenecking. Its 82 RT cores and 328 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI acceleration, though the Arc A350M does have 6 RT cores of its own. The RTX 3090's 35.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute places it in a performance tier that the Arc A350M cannot approach.

The Arc A350M wins in power efficiency and physical integration. Its 25 W TDP is 14x lower than the RTX 3090's 350 W, making it suitable for laptops where battery life and thermal limits are paramount. Its IGP slot width and lack of power connectors mean it can be soldered directly to a motherboard without additional cabling. Its 6 nm TSMC process is newer than the 8 nm Samsung process used for the RTX 3090, and its higher boost clock of 2200 MHz shows that Intel prioritized clock speed over raw resource count. For a user who needs a discrete GPU in an ultraportable system, the Arc A350M is the only choice between these two; for anyone who needs maximum performance, the RTX 3090 is the only choice, period.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The RTX 3090 at the 73rd percentile is a high-end desktop part competing with the RTX 4070 Mobile and RX 6700 XT. The Arc A350M at the 70th percentile is a mid-range mobile part competing with the RX 590 and GTX 1630. These are not peers; they serve different market segments. The RTX 3090 is a desktop flagship, while the Arc A350M is a mobile entry-level discrete GPU. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the Intel GPU is competitive with the NVIDIA GPU on raw performance, only scenarios where the Intel GPU's lower power draw and smaller footprint make it the practical choice for a specific class of hardware.