Intel Arc A370M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent margin of victory for the Intel Arc A370M across both compute workloads in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel part scores 29,676 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630's 24,858, a delta of 19.4% in favor of Intel. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the Arc A370M posting 28,673 versus the GTX 1630's 23,695, widening the gap slightly to 21%. The Intel GPU wins both head-to-head matchups, giving it a 2-0 record, while the NVIDIA card exits without a single victory.

These are not marginal differences. A 19.4% lead in OpenCL and a 21% lead in Vulkan represent substantial performance separation, especially considering both cards carry 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit memory bus. The Intel solution's average benchmark score of 29,175 places it at the 74th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the NVIDIA card's average of 24,277 sits at the 70th percentile. The percentile gap of four points understates the raw score difference; the Arc A370M's average is roughly 20% higher than the GTX 1630's average, which is a meaningful tier jump in real-world compute performance.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional context. The Intel Arc A370M's average score of 29,175 sits within 1% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197, delta -0.1%), the AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211, delta -0.1%), and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996, delta 0.6%). It even edges out the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874, delta 1%), a far more power-hungry mobile part. For the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, its average of 24,277 places it in a lower tier, trading blows with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti (24,236, delta 0.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (24,170, delta 0.4%), while trailing the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442, delta -0.7%) by a hair. The Intel card's nearest rivals are all faster or comparable, whereas the NVIDIA card's nearest rivals are a mixed bag of older and newer architectures.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A370M wins in every measured category. In OpenCL, which stresses general-purpose compute throughput, the Arc A370M's 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 8.397 TFLOPS of FP16 performance dwarf the GTX 1630's 1.828 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.656 TFLOPS FP16. That is more than double the raw floating-point throughput in both precisions. The Arc A370M also holds a decisive advantage in texture and pixel processing: 131.2 GTexel/s versus 57.12 GTexel/s, and 65.60 GPixel/s versus 28.56 GPixel/s. These are not subtle differences; the Intel part processes textures at 2.3 times the rate of the NVIDIA part and fills pixels at 2.3 times the rate as well.

In Vulkan, which typically reflects real-world game engine and graphics workload performance more closely than OpenCL, the Arc A370M again takes the lead with a 21% margin. The higher boost clock of the GTX 1630 (1785 MHz versus 2050 MHz on the Arc) does not compensate for the Intel card's superior execution resources. The Arc A370M packs 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the GTX 1630 has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Intel card also includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the GTX 1630. For any workload that leverages ray tracing, Vulkan, or general compute, the data points squarely to the Intel Arc A370M.

The GTX 1630's only recorded advantages are in the physical and interface domains. It runs at a higher base clock (1740 MHz versus 1550 MHz) and consumes more power (75 W versus 35 W), but the extra power does not translate into a performance win in the database. The NVIDIA card also offers a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which is wider than the Arc A370M's PCIe 4.0 x8, but again, the benchmark results do not reflect any benefit from that extra bandwidth. In every workload the database tracks, the Intel part wins outright.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and process technologies. The Intel Arc A370M is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, using the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, by contrast, uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Its transistor density is just 23.5 million per square millimeter, roughly half of Intel's. The Intel chip is physically smaller but contains over 50% more transistors, a direct consequence of the more advanced 6 nm node.

The compute architectures diverge sharply. Intel's Xe-HPG is a modern, feature-complete architecture designed for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing support via 8 dedicated RT cores. The GTX 1630 is based on the older Turing architecture but is stripped down: it has no RT cores and no tensor cores, and its DirectX support tops out at 12 (12_1), not the Ultimate tier. This means the Arc A370M can handle ray-traced workloads and the latest DirectX 12 Ultimate features, while the GTX 1630 cannot. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level compatibility is otherwise equal.

Memory configurations are similar on paper but differ in speed. Both use 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The Intel part runs its memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), producing 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA part runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), yielding 96.00 GB/s. That is a 16.7% bandwidth advantage for Intel, which aligns with its overall performance lead. The GTX 1630's predecessor is listed as GeForce 10 and its successor as GeForce 20, confirming its position as a low-end Turing derivative. The Arc A370M is part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3 Mobile), released on 2022-03-29, three months before the GTX 1630's 2022-06-27 launch. Both parts are now end-of-life.

Power and physical characteristics tell the efficiency story. The Arc A370M is rated at 35 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics package) design, meaning it is intended for mobile platforms where power is scarce. The GTX 1630 is a single-slot discrete card rated at 75 W, with no power connectors required and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 1630 measures 145 mm by 69 mm by 18 mm, while the Arc A370M's dimensions are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its mobile-focused design. The Intel card achieves a 21% higher average benchmark score while consuming less than half the power, a remarkable efficiency gap rooted in the 6 nm process versus 12 nm.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Arc A370M is the faster GPU in every measured workload. It wins OpenCL by 19.4%, Vulkan by 21%, and holds a 4,898-point advantage in average benchmark score (29,175 versus 24,277). Its 74th percentile ranking versus the GTX 1630's 70th percentile confirms that the Intel part sits in a higher performance class overall. Buyers or system integrators who need maximum compute throughput, ray tracing support, or DirectX 12 Ultimate compatibility should choose the Arc A370M without hesitation.

The GTX 1630 does have one thing going for it: it is a discrete, single-slot card with a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and predictable display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a). For systems that require a drop-in discrete GPU with no external power connectors and a 250 W PSU recommendation, the GTX 1630 is the more straightforward installation. But the performance data does not favor it in any compute benchmark. The GTX 1630's nearest rivals in the database, such as the GTX 780 Ti and RTX 2080 SUPER, are within 0.4% of its average score, which indicates it is a middle-of-the-pack part, whereas the Arc A370M trades with far more capable GPUs like the RX 6800M.

The decision hinges on the platform. In a mobile or low-power context, the Arc A370M is not just faster but also more efficient, drawing 35 W versus 75 W. In a desktop context where the GTX 1630's physical card form factor and wide PCIe slot are assets, the NVIDIA part remains viable, but the performance ceiling is measurably lower. The data is unambiguous: the Arc A370M outperforms the GTX 1630 across the board, and no benchmark in the database shows the reverse.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has an average benchmark score of 29,175, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 has an average of 24,277. The Intel part sits at the 74th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the GTX 1630's 70th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A370M in Vulkan?

A: The Arc A370M scores 28,673 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 1630 scores 23,695. That is a 21% advantage for the Intel card.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 1630 has no RT cores and no tensor cores, and its DirectX support is limited to 12 (12_1). The Intel Arc A370M includes 8 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. The Intel Arc A370M runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 1630 runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The Intel Arc A370M is rated at 35 W TDP, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 is rated at 75 W. The Intel part also has a smaller die (157 mm² versus 200 mm²) on a more advanced 6 nm process.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A370M's average score of 29,175 is within 1% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197) and AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211), and it leads the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874) by 1%. The GTX 1630's average of 24,277 is within 0.7% of the GTX 780 Ti (24,236), RTX 2080 SUPER (24,170), and RX 6600 XT (24,442).