Intel Arc A350M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database presents a clear hierarchy between these two very different GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 dominates across the two shared tests, with an average benchmark score of 28,421 compared to the Intel Arc A350M's 24,647. The recorded data shows the Quadro RTX 8000 leads by 315.1% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 395.6% in Geekbench Vulkan. This is not a close contest in raw compute terms.

The Quadro RTX 8000 is the choice for workloads demanding maximum compute throughput, high memory capacity, and professional workstation features. The Intel Arc A350M, a mobile integrated graphics processor, is a low-power option with a much smaller footprint, but its performance ceiling is far lower. For anyone comparing these two, the data suggests the Quadro RTX 8000 is the only serious option for heavy 3D rendering, large dataset handling, or compute-intensive tasks. The Arc A350M would only be suitable for light, portable workloads where the Quadro's size and power draw are prohibitive.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is substantial. The Quadro RTX 8000 uses NVIDIA's Turing architecture on the TU102 chip, built on a 12 nm TSMC process. It packs 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, with a transistor density of 24.7 million per mm². The Intel Arc A350M uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, fabricated on a more advanced 6 nm TSMC process. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a much smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 45.9 million per mm².

The Quadro RTX 8000 features 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. It also includes 72 ray tracing cores and 576 tensor cores. The Arc A350M is far smaller in this regard, with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. It has no tensor cores listed in the database. The clock speeds differ notably: the Quadro RTX 8000 has a base clock of 1395 MHz and a boost of 1770 MHz, while the Arc A350M starts at 1150 MHz but boosts higher to 2200 MHz.

Memory configurations diverge completely. The Quadro RTX 8000 carries 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A350M has only 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. The power envelope tells the story: the Quadro RTX 8000 has a 260 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested PSU, while the Arc A350M operates at just 25 W and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor). The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Arc.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 8000 wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, so the database records no wins for the Arc A350M. The Quadro's advantages are most pronounced in raw compute: its FP32 throughput is 16.31 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS for the Arc, and its FP16 output is 32.62 TFLOPS versus 6.758 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 169.9 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 509.8 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s.

The Arc A350M does hold ground in efficiency metrics. Its 6 nm process and 25 W TDP suggest far lower power consumption, and its higher boost clock of 2200 MHz indicates it can reach high frequencies when needed. However, the benchmark scores do not reflect any performance win for the Arc. The Quadro RTX 8000 also has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs at 74, versus 70 for the Arc A350M. In the nearest rivals data, the Quadro RTX 8000 sits near the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (0.6% behind) and AMD Radeon RX 570 (1.2% behind), while the Arc A350M is close to the AMD Radeon RX 590 (0.4% behind) and NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (0.5% behind).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 has an average benchmark score of 28,421, compared to 24,647 for the Intel Arc A350M.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro RTX 8000 in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 scores 122,637 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 395.6% higher than the Arc A350M's 24,747.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 72 ray tracing cores, while the Arc A350M has 6.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has a TDP of 260 W, while the Arc A350M has a TDP of 25 W.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life?

A: Yes, the database lists both the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and the Intel Arc A350M as end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two shared tests, and the Quadro RTX 8000 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 101,883 against the Arc's 24,546, a delta of 315.1%. This is a massive gap, reflecting the Quadro's far larger shading unit count and memory bandwidth. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro achieves 122,637 versus 24,747, a delta of 395.6%. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided, suggesting the Quadro's architecture scales better with the lower-level API.

The nearest rival data provides context. The Quadro RTX 8000's average score of 28,421 places it within a tight cluster: the AMD Radeon R9 M295X scores 28,580 (0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 570 scores 28,766 (1.2% higher), the AMD FirePro S7150 scores 28,117 (1.1% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti scores 28,020 (1.4% lower). The Arc A350M, by contrast, sits near 24,647 with rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 590 at 24,744 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile at 24,763 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT at 24,442 (0.8% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 at 24,277 (1.5% lower). The Quadro's performance tier is roughly 15% higher in average score than the Arc's tier, though the head-to-head deltas are much larger due to the specific tests used.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | Intel Arc A350M |

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

| Architecture | Turing | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 18,600 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 754 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.7M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1395 MHz | 1150 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 768 |

| TMUs | 288 | 48 |

| ROPs | 96 | 24 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 72 | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | 576 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 169.9 GPixel/s | 52.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 509.8 GTexel/s | 105.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 16.31 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) | 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 25 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | null |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | null |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 111 mm height | null |

| Release Date | 2018-08-12 | 2022-03-29 |

| Launch MSRP | 9,999 USD | null |

| Predecessor | Quadro Volta | null |

| Successor | Workstation Ampere | null |