Intel Arc A350M vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 and Intel Arc A350M represent opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: one is a professional workstation card designed for maximum compute throughput, the other a low-power mobile part aimed at thin-and-light laptops. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the architectural and specification differences tell a more nuanced story about their intended roles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is brief but unambiguous, with the NVIDIA RTX A4000 winning both available tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A4000 scores 105,739 against the Arc A350M’s 24,546, a delta of 330.8%. That is not a marginal victory; it is a four-fold difference in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the RTX A4000 posts 127,645 versus 24,747, a 415.8% advantage. For context, the RTX A4000’s nearest rival in average benchmark score is the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, which trails by just 0.5%, while the Arc A350M sits within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 590 and 0.5% of the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile. The A4000 is competing in a performance class several tiers above the A350M, and the head-to-head data confirms that.

The RTX A4000’s broader benchmark suite reinforces this picture. Its PassMark G3D score is 19,459, and its PassMark GPU Compute score is 9,760, figures that dwarf the mobile Intel part’s capabilities. In contrast, the Arc A350M has only two recorded benchmarks, both Geekbench tests, and its average benchmark score of 24,647 places it at the 70th percentile of all GPUs. The RTX A4000, with an average score of 26,683, sits at the 72nd percentile. While the percentile gap is modest — just two points — the raw score difference is substantial, and the deltaPct values in the head-to-head tests show the A4000 is not merely incrementally faster but categorically dominant.

It is importantly the Arc A350M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 590 (deltaPct -0.4%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (deltaPct 1.5%), both older desktop parts. Meanwhile, the RTX A4000’s closest competitors include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (deltaPct 1.3%) and the AMD Radeon 860M (deltaPct 1.1%). This grouping indicates that the A4000 is aligned with modern mid-range desktop GPUs, while the A350M is closer to entry-level or previous-generation hardware. The data shows no test where the Intel part wins; the RTX A4000 takes both head-to-head matchups, 2 wins to 0.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A4000 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX A4000 scores 105,739 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel Arc A350M scores 24,546. This represents a 330.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A350M win any benchmark against the RTX A4000?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests recorded (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RTX A4000 wins both. The A4000 has 2 wins, and the A350M has 0 wins.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two GPUs?

A: The RTX A4000 has an average benchmark score of 26,683, placing it at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. The Arc A350M averages 24,647, which is at the 70th percentile. Despite the close percentile ranking, the A4000’s average score is higher by over 2,000 points.

Q: How does the RTX A4000 compare to its nearest rival, and how does the A350M compare to its nearest rival?

A: The RTX A4000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, which has an average score of 26,553, a delta of just 0.5%. The Arc A350M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 590, with an average score of 24,744, a delta of -0.4%. The A4000 is effectively tied with a high-end desktop card, while the A350M is similarly tied with a much older desktop part.

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

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000 ranks at the 72nd percentile, while the Intel Arc A350M ranks at the 70th percentile. The difference is small, but it indicates that the A4000 sits slightly higher in the overall performance distribution.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The production status for both the NVIDIA RTX A4000 and the Intel Arc A350M is listed as "End-of-life." The A4000 was released on 2021-04-11, and the A350M followed on 2022-03-29.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the NVIDIA RTX A4000 is the superior performer by a wide margin. In Geekbench Vulkan, it is 415.8% faster than the Arc A350M, and in OpenCL it is 330.8% faster. The A4000’s average benchmark score of 26,683 versus 24,647 for the A350M, combined with its higher percentile ranking (72nd vs. 70th), confirms that this is not a close contest. If the priority is raw compute performance, professional workloads, or any task that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, the RTX A4000 is the only rational choice based on the data.

However, context matters. The Intel Arc A350M is a 25 W mobile part with an IGP form factor, designed for portability and power efficiency. Its performance, while far behind the A4000, is still competitive with desktop parts like the AMD Radeon RX 590 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, as shown by its nearestRivals deltaPct values of -0.4% and 1.5%, respectively. The RTX A4000, by contrast, is a 140 W single-slot workstation card with a 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. It is not designed for the same use case.

Who should pick which? The data suggests the RTX A4000 for anyone who needs maximum compute throughput, professional-grade drivers, or high-bandwidth memory. The Arc A350M, with its 25 W TDP and portable-device-dependent display outputs, is suited for a low-power laptop environment where the A4000 physically cannot fit. The benchmarks do not show the A350M winning any test, but they also do not penalize it for being a fundamentally different class of product. The verdict is not that the A350M is bad; it is that the A4000 is in a different league.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply on nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. That is a four-fold difference in capacity and bandwidth. The A4000’s memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), identical to the A350M, but the wider bus makes the difference.

The compute resources are similarly disparate. The RTX A4000 has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The A350M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The A4000 also features 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, while the A350M has 6 RT cores and no listed tensor cores. Pixel rate is 149.8 GPixel/s for the A4000 versus 52.80 GPixel/s for the A350M, and texture rate is 299.5 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The A350M has a higher base clock (1150 MHz vs. 735 MHz) and a much higher boost clock (2200 MHz vs. 1560 MHz), but the A4000 compensates with far more hardware. The result is that FP32 compute is 19.17 TFLOPS for the A4000 versus 3.379 TFLOPS for the A350M. The TDP difference is stark: 140 W for the A4000 versus 25 W for the A350M. The A4000 is a single-slot card with a 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, while the A350M is an IGP with no power connectors or PSU recommendation. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the A4000 versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the A350M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational and philosophical. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 is built on the Ampere architecture, specifically the GA104 chip, manufactured on Samsung’s 8 nm process. The Intel Arc A350M uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm node. The process difference is notable: 8 nm versus 6 nm, with the Intel part using a denser process.

The chip sizes reflect the different design goals. The RTX A4000’s GA104 die measures 392 mm² and contains 17,400 million transistors, for a density of 44.4M transistors per mm². The A350M’s DG2-128 die is 157 mm² with 7,200 million transistors, yielding a slightly higher density of 45.9M per mm². The A4000 is a much larger and more complex chip, but the A350M is more efficiently packed.

Memory architecture follows the same pattern. The A4000 uses a 256-bit memory bus, while the A350M uses a 64-bit bus. Both use GDDR6 and run at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), but the A4000’s wider interface gives it 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s for the A350M. The FP16 capabilities differ as well: the A4000 offers 19.17 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the A350M offers 6.758 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it is relatively stronger at FP16 than FP32.

Feature support is similar on paper — both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 — but the underlying implementations diverge. The A4000 is a workstation part with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the A350M’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile IGP nature. The A4000 also has a predecessor (Quadro Turing) and successor (Workstation Ada), while the A350M has neither, marking it as a standalone product in Intel’s Alchemist generation.