Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and Intel Arc A380 are two very different graphics cards from different eras, but the benchmark data shows a clear overall winner for modern workloads. The Intel Arc A380 holds a decisive advantage in the only directly comparable benchmark, while the Quadro 6000 retains relevance only in legacy-specific contexts. Below is a breakdown of their performance, architecture, and ideal use cases based strictly on recorded measurements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the Intel Arc A380 scores 38,224, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846. This gives the Intel card a 74.2 percent lead, a dominant margin. In practical terms, the Arc A380 delivers roughly four times the raw compute throughput of the Quadro 6000 in this OpenCL workload. The delta is so large that no other benchmark is needed to establish which card is faster in a generic compute sense.

The Quadro 6000’s score of 9,846 places it at the 47th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, 0.1 percent behind), the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.4 percent behind), and the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.7 percent behind). Notably, the GTX 1070, a much later consumer card, scores slightly lower than this 2010 workstation part in this specific test, suggesting the Quadro’s legacy compute design remains competitive against those specific older rivals. The Quadro 6000 also edges out the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, which is 1.1 percent ahead of the Quadro, so the Quadro is actually behind that one).

The Arc A380’s OpenCL score of 38,224 places it far above these same older cards, but its overall percentile is 44, slightly lower than the Quadro’s 47. This is because the Arc has additional benchmark data in the database, including 3DMark Steel Nomad (808), Geekbench Vulkan (36,736), Passmark DirectX 9 (73), DirectX 10 (37), DirectX 11 (38), DirectX 12 (35), G2D (610), G3D (6,252), and GPU Compute (2,762). These results pull its average down to 8,558, which is lower than the Quadro’s single-score average of 9,846. The Arc’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W5170M (8,595, 0.4 percent ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 1.1 percent behind). The delta between the two cards in the head-to-head is 74.2 percent, favoring the Arc.

The data suggests that if the only metric is raw OpenCL compute, the Arc A380 is in a different performance class. The Quadro, while showing respectable scores against its own peers, cannot match the Arc’s architectural generation advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The Quadro 6000 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip, manufactured at 40 nanometers by TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. This is a massive, power-hungry chip for its time. The Arc A380 uses Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, built on a 6nm process, also by TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors but on a much smaller die of 157 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter, roughly eight times higher than the Fermi chip.

The memory subsystems are also distinct. The Quadro uses 6GB of GDDR5 over a 384-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s. The Arc also has 6GB, but it is GDDR6, on a much narrower 96-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the Arc achieves higher bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s. This is due to the faster effective memory clock: 15.5 Gbps effective on the Arc, versus 3 Gbps effective on the Quadro. The base clocks are also different: the Quadro has no listed base or boost clock, while the Arc runs at 2000 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost.

Compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Arc has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Arc also has 8 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely. The raw throughput numbers reflect this: the Arc produces 4.198 TFLOPS FP32, versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro. The Arc also lists FP16 performance at 8.397 TFLOPS, while the Quadro has no FP16 listing. Pixel fill rate goes to the Arc at 65.60 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. The Arc is clearly the faster compute card.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Arc A380 is the clear winner in raw compute, memory bandwidth, and modern feature support. Its only head-to-head benchmark result, OpenCL, is a 74.2 percent victory. This means for any general-purpose computing, video encoding, or modern 3D rendering that uses Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the Arc is the better choice. The Arc also supports a broader set of APIs, including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), a legacy feature level, and has no Vulkan support listed.

Where the Quadro could still win, if we look at the data, is in its specific legacy advantage. The Quadro’s OpenCL score of 9,846 is only 0.1 percent behind the Quadro M2000M, and it is 0.4 percent behind the FirePro W5000. This shows that for very old software that is optimized for Fermi-style hardware, the Quadro is competitive with much newer mobile and workstation parts. The Arc’s average benchmark score is lower (8,558) than the Quadro’s (9,846), but that is because the Arc has many more tests, some of which are low-scoring. The Quadro’s single OpenCL score is its strength, but it is the only data point.

The Arc wins on power efficiency as well. Its specified TDP is 75 W, while the Quadro draws 204 W. The Arc also suggests a 250 W power supply, whereas the Quadro recommends 550 W. The Arc is a dual-slot card like the Quadro, but it is shorter (222 mm versus 248 mm) and has a width of 42 mm, while the Quadro’s width is not listed. The Arc uses a single 8-pin connector, while the Quadro uses a 6-pin and an 8-pin.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Intel Arc A380 scores 38,224, which is 74.2 percent higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 6000’s score of 9,846.

Q: Where does the Quadro 6000 stand relative to its closest rivals?

A: The Quadro 6000’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, 0.1 percent slower), the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.4 percent slower), and the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.7 percent slower). It is 1.1 percent behind the GeForce GTX 870M.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000 has an average benchmark score of 9,846, while the Arc A380 has an average of 8,558, because the Arc has multiple other benchmark results in the database beyond OpenCL.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 support ray tracing?

A: No, the Quadro 6000 has no listed ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A380 has 8 RT cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both have 6 GB of memory, but the Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc uses GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has a pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s, compared to the Quadro 6000’s 16.07 GPixel/s.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Arc A380 is the superior card for any modern task. Its 74.2 percent lead in OpenCL is decisive, and it offers more shading units, higher clock speeds, higher memory bandwidth, and support for ray tracing and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 6000, while still functional, is a legacy product from 2010 with performance that is only comparable to much older mobile GPUs. Its only advantage is that its average score is higher, but that is a statistical artifact of the Arc having more tests to pull its average down.

The Arc is also more power-efficient, with a 75 W TDP versus 204 W for the Quadro, and a lower suggested PSU. For a database-driven recommendation, the Arc A380 is the clear choice for general purpose compute, gaming, and any application that can use modern APIs. The Quadro should only be chosen if a legacy application requires Fermi architecture compatibility, and even then, the data shows the Quadro’s performance is within a few percent of other old cards, not in a class of its own.

In short, the Arc A380 is the card to pick for performance, features, and efficiency. The Quadro 6000 is a historical artifact, best left for vintage workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 | Intel Arc A380 |

|----------------|-------------------|----------------|

| Architecture | Fermi | Xe-HPG |

| Chip | GF100 | DG2-128 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 747 MHz, 3 Gbps effective | 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 96 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 143.4 GB/s | 186.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 448 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 56 | 64 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 65.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 131.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 8.397 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 204 W | 75 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 248 mm length, 111 mm height | 222 mm length, 114 mm height, 42 mm width |

| Release Date | 2010-12-09 | 2022-06-13 |

| Launch MSRP | 4,399 USD | 149 USD |

| Average Benchmark Score | 9,846 | 8,558 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 47 | 44 |