Intel Arc A370M vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 and Intel Arc A370M occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum: a professional workstation behemoth versus a mobile integrated-class part. The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap, but the architectural and feature differences are just as stark. This analysis breaks down where each GPU wins, how they are built, and what the benchmark numbers actually mean in context.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the clear winner in every recorded benchmark. It is designed for compute-heavy professional workloads, as evidenced by its dominant scores in both OpenCL and Vulkan. In the database, it holds an 80th percentile ranking among all GPUs, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of recorded graphics cards. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (0.9% faster) and NVIDIA T1000 (2.1% faster), which places it in a performance tier that is competitive with other high-end professional cards.

The Intel Arc A370M is a mobile-first part, built for thin-and-light laptops. It is not a compute powerhouse; rather, its design priorities are efficiency and portability. Its 74th percentile ranking is respectable, but its nearest rivals are a different class of product: the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (0.1% slower), AMD FirePro W8000 (0.1% slower), and AMD Radeon RX 470 (0.6% slower). This cluster of rivals indicates that the A370M performs at a level comparable to older mid-range desktop GPUs, not modern workstation cards.

The use-case split is clear: the Quadro GV100 wins for professional visualization, deep learning inference, and any task that demands massive memory bandwidth. The Arc A370M wins for everyday laptop use, light gaming, and portable content creation where power draw is a critical constraint. The data shows that the GV100 is over 400% faster in compute benchmarks, but the A370M is designed for a completely different environment.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 uses the Volta architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It is a massive chip with 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.9M / mm². This is a first-generation tensor core GPU, with 640 tensor cores dedicated to AI workloads. It features 5,120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 128 raster output units. The GV100 is a dual-slot card requiring a 600 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin power connector.

The Intel Arc A370M uses the Xe-HPG architecture (DG2-128 chip), built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. This is a much smaller chip with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, resulting in a much higher transistor density of 45.9M / mm². It is a mobile integrated GPU (IGP) with no separate power connectors and a 35 W TDP. It uses a different compute layout: 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Notably, it includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature the older Volta architecture lacks. It has no tensor cores, as AI acceleration is not a focus for this mobile part.

The memory subsystems are also radically different. The GV100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The A370M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GV100 is a professional card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The A370M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host laptop's internal display connections.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is dramatically faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 150,004 versus 29,676 for the Intel Arc A370M, a difference of 405.5%. In Vulkan, the GV100 scores 139,526 versus 28,673, a 386.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A370M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100, based on the older Volta architecture, has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory, while the Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6. The GV100 also has a much wider 4096-bit memory bus compared to the A370M's 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has a higher boost clock at 2050 MHz, compared to the Quadro GV100's boost clock of 1627 MHz. However, the GV100's massive core count and memory bandwidth more than compensate for the lower clock speed.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life products in the database. The Quadro GV100 was released on March 26, 2018, and the Arc A370M was released on March 29, 2022.

Q: What is the DirectX support level for each?

A: The Intel Arc A370M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which is the newer specification. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights the key fields where the two products differ significantly.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro GV100 | Intel Arc A370M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Volta | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 21,100 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 815 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.9M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1132 MHz | 1550 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1627 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 868.4 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 5120 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 320 | 64 |

| ROPs | 128 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 8 |

| Tensor Cores | 640 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 16.66 TFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only two head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins both by a staggering margin.

The most significant result is in Geekbench OpenCL, a test that measures general-purpose compute performance. The Quadro GV100 scores 150,004, while the Intel Arc A370M scores 29,676. This is a 405.5% delta in favor of the NVIDIA card. This score is not surprising given the GV100's massive 5,120 shading units and 868.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which allow it to process far more data in parallel. The A370M's 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply dwarfed by the GV100's 16.66 TFLOPS.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a similar picture. The GV100 scores 139,526 versus the A370M's 28,673, a 386.6% advantage. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API, and the GV100's superior rasterization and compute resources translate directly into a higher score. The A370M's higher boost clock (2050 MHz) does not help it overcome the GV100's sheer core count and memory bandwidth advantage.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GV100's average benchmark score is 35,520, while the A370M's is 29,175. The GV100 sits in the 80th percentile of all GPUs, while the A370M is in the 74th percentile. The GV100's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile, is only 0.2% slower, showing that the GV100 is still competitive with much newer hardware in synthetic tests. The A370M's closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, is 0.1% slower, placing it in a performance tier that is roughly equivalent to a mid-range desktop GPU from a prior generation.

In summary, the data shows that the Quadro GV100 is in a different performance league entirely. The Arc A370M is a capable mobile part, but it is not designed to compete with a professional compute card that has four times the memory, a 64-bit wider memory bus, and five times the shading units. The only areas where the A370M leads are in process technology (6 nm vs 12 nm), clock speed, and modern API support like DirectX 12 Ultimate and hardware ray tracing. For any professional workload that relies on raw throughput, the GV100 is the clear choice.