Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The Intel Arc A380 and NVIDIA Quadro K4100M represent two very different eras of GPU design. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the Arc A380 delivering a decisive victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel card scores 38,224 points against the Quadro’s 9,149, a margin of 317.8% in favor of the Arc A380. This is not a close contest; the newer architecture simply overwhelms the older professional part in compute throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. This test measures general-purpose compute performance, which is relevant for tasks like rendering, simulation, and some machine learning workloads. The Intel Arc A380’s score of 38,224 is more than four times higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M’s 9,149. The delta of 317.8% highlights a generational gap in raw execution capability.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Arc A380 also posts a higher average benchmark score of 8,558 compared to the Quadro K4100M’s 7,906. While the head-to-head result is lopsided, the average scores are closer, suggesting that the Quadro holds up better in certain legacy or DirectX-based tests that are included in the aggregate. The Arc A380’s individual scores show a wide range: it hits 6,252 in Passmark G3D, 2,762 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 610 in Passmark G2D. Its DirectX 9 score of 73 is notably higher than its DirectX 10 (37), DirectX 11 (38), and DirectX 12 (35) scores, which is an unusual pattern indicating potential driver overhead or optimization gaps in newer APIs.

The Quadro K4100M’s available data is sparse, with only the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Metal scores (6,662) listed. Its OpenCL result of 9,149 places it far behind the Arc part. In terms of percentile ranking among all GPUs, the Arc A380 sits at the 44th percentile, while the Quadro K4100M is at the 41st. This places both in the lower-middle tier of the overall performance distribution, but the Intel part is consistently ahead in the direct comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380 wins decisively in the single available head-to-head compute benchmark. Its OpenCL performance is in a different league, which suggests it is better suited for modern compute-heavy applications that can leverage its higher shading unit count and newer instruction set. The Arc also has a higher average benchmark score, indicating that it generally outperforms the Quadro across a broader set of workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M, despite losing the compute test, is not without merit. Its average score of 7,906 is only 7.6% below the Arc’s 8,558, which is a much smaller gap than the 317.8% OpenCL deficit. This suggests that in some legacy or driver-optimized scenarios, the Quadro may be closer in performance. The Quadro also has a higher transistor density per square millimeter in a different context, but that is a physical attribute, not a performance metric. The data does not provide any benchmark where the Quadro wins, so any advantage is inferred from its relatively competitive average score. The Arc’s Passmark DirectX 9 score of 73 is a strong point for older game compatibility, while its G3D score of 6,252 shows it is capable in modern 3D rendering.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The Intel Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip with the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die, giving a density of just 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Arc’s smaller, denser node allows for significantly higher clock speeds and efficiency.

Clock speeds further illustrate the generational leap. The Arc A380 has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2050 MHz. The Quadro K4100M is locked at a static 706 MHz for both base and boost. This nearly 3x clock advantage for the Intel part is a primary driver of its massive compute lead. Memory also differs substantially. The Arc uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but only achieves 102.4 GB/s due to its lower 800 MHz memory clock. While the Quadro’s bus is wider, the Arc’s faster memory technology provides 82% more bandwidth.

The shading and texture configurations are also distinct. The Arc A380 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). It also includes 8 ray tracing cores. The Quadro K4100M has more shading units at 1,152 and more TMUs at 96, but the same 32 ROPs, and no ray tracing cores. Despite having fewer units, the Arc’s much higher clock speed results in a far higher pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 16.94 GPixel/s. The texture rate follows the same pattern: 131.2 GTexel/s for the Arc versus 67.78 GTexel/s for the Quadro. The FP32 compute is 4.198 TFLOPS for the Arc, more than double the Quadro’s 1.627 TFLOPS.

Power and form factor are another differentiator. The Arc A380 has a 75 W TDP, while the Quadro K4100M has a 100 W TDP. The Arc is a dual-slot card with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a suggested 250 W power supply. The Quadro is an MXM module with no power connectors, typically used in laptops or mobile workstations. The Arc uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface. Display outputs also differ: the Arc offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the Quadro’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile nature.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most modern workloads: the Intel Arc A380. Its 317.8% lead in OpenCL compute, combined with a higher average benchmark score (8,558 vs 7,906), makes it the superior choice for tasks requiring raw computational power, such as rendering, video encoding, or any GPGPU application. The Arc also benefits from a modern feature set, including 8 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and a higher 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 throughput. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth is also more generous than the Quadro’s 4 GB of GDDR5.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M, given its age and architecture, is only recommendable for legacy systems or specific professional applications that require its MXM form factor. Its lower clock speeds, older Kepler architecture, and lack of ray tracing cores place it at a significant disadvantage. Its average score of 7,906 is respectable, but the head-to-head data shows it is far behind the Arc in compute performance. The Quadro’s 41st percentile ranking versus the Arc’s 44th confirms its lower standing.

Users who need maximum performance in compute-heavy tasks should choose the Intel Arc A380. Those constrained to a mobile workstation chassis that accepts MXM modules and requires a Quadro driver stack may have no choice but to use the K4100M, but the data shows they will sacrifice significant performance. The Arc is the better GPU by every measured metric in the head-to-head comparison.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc A380 compare to the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M in OpenCL performance?

A: The Arc A380 scores 38,224 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K4100M scores 9,149. This gives the Arc a 317.8% advantage, making it over four times faster in this compute test.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has an average benchmark score of 8,558, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M’s 7,906. The Arc also has a higher percentile ranking at 44% versus the Quadro’s 41%.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two cards?

A: The Arc A380 uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors, while the Quadro K4100M uses the older Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors. The Arc also includes 8 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro lacks.

Q: Does the Quadro K4100M have any memory advantages?

A: The Quadro has a wider 256-bit memory bus compared to the Arc’s 96-bit bus. However, the Arc’s GDDR6 memory runs at 1937 MHz and provides 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 82% higher than the Quadro’s 102.4 GB/s from its slower GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has a TDP of 75 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has a higher TDP of 100 W. This means the Arc delivers more performance while consuming less power.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A380 | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Kepler |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2050 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 96 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 186.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 64 | 96 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 4.198 TFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 65.60 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 131.2 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 75 W | 100 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |