Intel Arc A370M vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 and Intel Arc A370M occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, yet their benchmark averages land surprisingly close. The Quadro M5000, a Maxwell-era workstation card from 2015, posts an average benchmark score of 31,206, while the much newer Arc A370M mobile chip scores 29,175. That difference of roughly 7% places them in adjacent performance tiers, but their strengths are anything but aligned. The data shows a clear split: the Quadro M5000 dominates in Vulkan workloads, while the Arc A370M takes the lead in OpenCL. This makes the choice between them a matter of workload, not raw horsepower.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 is the clear winner in Vulkan compute. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 32,931 stands 14.9% above the Arc A370M’s 28,673. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the Maxwell 2.0 architecture handles Vulkan’s low-level API demands with greater efficiency in this head-to-head comparison. For builders targeting Vulkan-based applications or games, the Quadro M5000 offers a decisive advantage.

The Intel Arc A370M counters in OpenCL. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 29,676 edges out the Quadro M5000’s 29,481 by a slim 0.7%. While the margin is narrow, it is a win nonetheless. The Arc A370M’s Xe-HPG architecture, with its 1,024 shading units running at a 1,550 MHz base and 2,050 MHz boost clock, delivers competitive OpenCL throughput. The Quadro M5000, despite having twice the shading units (2,048) at lower clocks (861 MHz base, 1,038 MHz boost), cannot overcome the Arc’s per-clock efficiency in this test.

Beyond the direct head-to-head, each card’s standing among its nearest rivals reinforces these strengths. The Quadro M5000’s average score of 31,206 sits within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (31,087) and just 1% below the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (31,532). That is remarkable company for a 2015 workstation card. The Arc A370M, meanwhile, trades blows with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197, -0.1% delta) and the AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211, -0.1% delta), placing it in solid mid-range mobile territory.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 if your priority is Vulkan performance or if you need a dual-slot desktop card with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 256-bit memory bus. Its Vulkan lead of 14.9% over the Arc A370M is the largest single benchmark advantage in this comparison. The Quadro M5000 also posts a higher 76th percentile versus all GPUs, compared to the Arc’s 74th, indicating slightly better overall standing in the database.

Choose the Intel Arc A370M if you are building a compact or mobile system where power and space are at a premium. Its 35 W TDP against the Quadro M5000’s 150 W TDP is a massive difference, and its IGP slot width means it needs no dedicated cooler or power connectors. The Arc also wins the OpenCL test, though only by 0.7%, and its 6 nm TSMC process node is far more advanced than the Quadro’s 28 nm node. If OpenCL is your primary API and you value efficiency, the Arc A370M is the practical pick.

For raw compute parity, the data shows these are close. The Quadro’s average score is 31,206 versus the Arc’s 29,175 — a 6.5% gap that favors NVIDIA but is not overwhelming. The real decision hinges on whether you need the Quadro’s Vulkan muscle or the Arc’s portability and OpenCL edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are straightforward, with each card taking one victory. In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 scores 32,931 against the Intel Arc A370M’s 28,673. That is a 14.9% delta in favor of NVIDIA, a commanding lead that suggests the Quadro’s Maxwell architecture is exceptionally well-tuned for Vulkan’s command buffer and descriptor set handling. This is the standout result of the entire comparison.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the tables turn. The Intel Arc A370M scores 29,676, narrowly beating the Quadro M5000’s 29,481. The delta is only 0.7%, which is within run-to-run variance territory, but the win is recorded nonetheless. For OpenCL workloads, these two cards are effectively equivalent, with the Arc holding a razor-thin edge.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro M5000’s average score of 31,206 is buoyed by its strong Vulkan result, while its OpenCL score drags it down. Conversely, the Arc A370M’s average of 29,175 is propped up by its OpenCL win, with the Vulkan deficit pulling it lower. The net effect is a 2,031-point gap in average scores, but that gap obscures the fact that the two cards are nearly tied in OpenCL and far apart in Vulkan.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 has a higher average benchmark score of 31,206, compared to the Intel Arc A370M’s 29,175. The Quadro also holds a 76th percentile versus all GPUs, while the Arc sits at the 74th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M5000 in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro M5000 scores 32,931 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 14.9% higher than the Arc A370M’s 28,673. This is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Does the Arc A370M win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Arc A370M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 29,676, edging out the Quadro M5000’s 29,481 by just 0.7%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro M5000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 211.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has a 35 W TDP, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 has a 150 W TDP. The Arc is also an IGP with no power connectors required, whereas the Quadro needs a dual-slot cooler and a 1x 6-pin power connector.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life. The Quadro M5000 was released in June 2015, and the Arc A370M was released in March 2022.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 uses the GM204 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, for a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The Intel Arc A370M uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a much smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a density of 45.9 million per mm². That is over three times the transistor density, a direct result of the newer process node.

The shading resources differ significantly. The Quadro M5000 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. The Arc A370M has half the shading units at 1,024, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite this, the Arc’s higher clock speeds — 1,550 MHz base and 2,050 MHz boost versus 861 MHz and 1,038 MHz — bring its FP32 compute to 4.198 TFLOPS, nearly matching the Quadro’s 4.252 TFLOPS. The Arc also has 8 ray tracing cores, a feature the Maxwell-based Quadro lacks entirely.

Memory architecture is another stark difference. The Quadro uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, delivering 211.6 GB/s. The Arc uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s. The Quadro’s memory bandwidth is nearly double, which matters for large data sets. The Arc’s memory runs at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro’s 1,653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), but the narrow bus limits overall throughput.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The Quadro M5000 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Arc A370M is an IGP with no published dimensions. The Quadro requires a 450 W suggested power supply and a 1x 6-pin connector; the Arc has no power connectors and no suggested PSU rating.

Clock speeds favor the Arc. The Intel part runs at 1,550 MHz base and 2,050 MHz boost, compared to the Quadro’s 861 MHz base and 1,038 MHz boost. Memory clocks also favor the Arc at 1,750 MHz versus 1,653 MHz, though the Quadro’s wider bus compensates in bandwidth.

The Quadro’s display outputs are fixed at 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The Arc’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile nature. Bus interfaces differ as well: the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Quadro’s basic DirectX 12 (12_1). The Arc also supports FP16 at 8.397 TFLOPS, a feature the Quadro does not list.

The TDP gap is the most practical difference: 150 W for the Quadro versus 35 W for the Arc. The Quadro’s pixel rate is 66.43 GPixel/s and texture rate is 132.9 GTexel/s, while the Arc posts 65.60 GPixel/s and 131.2 GTexel/s — nearly identical, despite the architectural chasm.