Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison
Intel Arc A380
Quadro 5000
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000
The Verdict
The data in this comparison is unusually one-sided. The Intel Arc A380 defeats the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 in the only directly comparable benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a margin of 424.4%. The Arc A380 records a score of 38,224 against 7,289 for the Quadro 5000. This is not a close contest in raw compute throughput. The Arc A380 also carries a much larger average benchmark score of 8,558 across its ten recorded tests, placing it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Quadro 5000 sits at the 40th percentile with an average score of 7,289 from a single recorded test. For any user choosing between these two based on measured performance, the Arc A380 is the clear pick. The Quadro 5000, however, belongs to a different era of professional graphics, and its strengths lie in legacy compatibility and specific workstation workflows that predate modern API demands. The verdict from the recorded data: the Intel Arc A380 is the faster, more modern GPU by a substantial amount, while the Quadro 5000 is a historical artifact with a niche appeal for older software environments.
Architecture Differences
The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast. The Intel Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors packed into a 157 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip based on the Fermi architecture, from the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation. It is built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC, with 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die. The transistor density is only 5.9 million per square millimeter, a reflection of the much older manufacturing technology. The Arc A380 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 raster output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores at all. The Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and has no Vulkan support listed. The memory architectures also differ fundamentally: the Arc A380 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, while the Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus. The Arc A380's clock behavior is more modern, with a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost of 2050 MHz, while the Quadro 5000 has no base or boost clock recorded, only a memory clock of 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective).
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The Intel Arc A380 scores 38,224, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. This gives the Arc A380 a win with a delta of 424.4%. To put that in perspective, the Quadro 5000 would need to more than quintuple its score to match the Arc A380. The Arc A380 also shows a much broader benchmark portfolio: it has ten recorded tests, covering 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (808 points), Geekbench Vulkan (36,736), Passmark DirectX 10 (37), DirectX 11 (38), DirectX 12 (35), DirectX 9 (73), G2D (610), G3D (6,252), and GPU Compute (2,762). The Quadro 5000 has only one recorded test, Geekbench OpenCL. This disparity in test coverage itself is telling: the Quadro 5000's single score is below the Arc A380's lowest recorded Passmark DirectX score in relative terms, though the tests are not directly comparable. The average benchmark score for the Arc A380 is 8,558, which is 17.4% higher than the Quadro 5000's average of 7,289. However, the Arc A380's nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow band: the AMD FirePro W5170M (8,595, -0.4%), AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 1.1%), NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, 1.2%), and AMD Radeon 880M (8,436, 1.4%). The Quadro 5000's nearest rivals are similarly clustered: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7,222, 0.9%), AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203, 1.2%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171, 1.6%), and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170, 1.7%). These rival clusters show that both cards sit in the lower-middle range of the overall GPU landscape, but the Arc A380 sits one full tier above the Quadro 5000 in average performance.
FAQ
Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Arc A380 has an average benchmark score of 8,558, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has an average score of 7,289. The Arc A380 is ahead by roughly 17%.
Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?
A: The Intel Arc A380 scores 38,224, and the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. The Arc A380 leads by 424.4%.
Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 support ray tracing?
A: No. The Quadro 5000 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The Intel Arc A380 has 8 ray tracing cores.
Q: What is the memory configuration difference?
A: The Intel Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?
A: The Intel Arc A380 has a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has a density of 5.9 million per square millimeter.
Q: Are both GPUs still in production?
A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The Intel Arc A380 was released on 2022-06-13, and the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 was released on 2011-02-22.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Arc A380 wins in every measurable compute scenario in the recorded data. Its FP32 throughput is 4.198 TFLOPS, compared to 722.3 GFLOPS for the Quadro 5000. The pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s. The Arc A380 also has more memory capacity (6 GB vs 2.5 GB) and higher bandwidth (186.0 GB/s vs 120.0 GB/s). In modern API support, the Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 5000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. For gaming, content creation, or any workload leveraging current graphics APIs, the Arc A380 is the only viable choice. The Quadro 5000, however, has a few areas where it does not fall behind. It has a wider memory bus (320-bit vs 96-bit), which can matter in certain legacy bandwidth-sensitive workloads that do not require large memory pools. It also has more ROPs (40 vs 32), which historically helped with fill-rate-bound tasks at lower resolutions. The Quadro 5000's PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while older, provides more lanes than the Arc A380's PCIe 4.0 x8, though the newer standard compensates with higher per-lane bandwidth. For users running software that predates DirectX 11 and OpenGL 4.6, the Quadro 5000's Fermi architecture may have more mature driver support in legacy environments, though the database does not provide specific compatibility data. The Arc A380 wins on raw numbers; the Quadro 5000 wins only in the narrow context of historical compatibility and wider bus architecture.
Specification Differences
The two cards differ on nearly every specification field. The process node is 6 nm for the Arc A380 versus 40 nm for the Quadro 5000. Transistor count is 7,200 million versus 3,100 million. Die size is 157 mm² versus 529 mm². Transistor density is 45.9M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm². The Arc A380 has a base clock of 2000 MHz and boost of 2050 MHz; the Quadro 5000 has no base or boost clock recorded. Memory clock is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for the Arc A380 versus 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 5000. Memory size is 6 GB GDDR6 versus 2.5 GB GDDR5. Bus width is 96-bit versus 320-bit. Bandwidth is 186.0 GB/s versus 120.0 GB/s. Shading units are 1,024 versus 352. TMUs are 64 versus 44. ROPs are 32 versus 40. RT cores are 8 versus none. FP32 performance is 4.198 TFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS. FP16 performance is 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Arc A380, while the Quadro 5000 has no FP16 data. Pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s. TDP is 75 W versus 152 W. Power connectors are 1x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 450 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 for the Arc A380, versus 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort for the Quadro 5000. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (11_0). Vulkan support is 1.4 versus null. The Arc A380 measures 222 mm in length, 114 mm in height, and 42 mm in width; the Quadro 5000 measures 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with no width recorded. Release dates are 2022-06-13 for the Arc A380 and 2011-02-22 for the Quadro 5000. The Arc A380's launch MSRP is 149 USD, while the Quadro 5000's launch MSRP is 2,499 USD.