Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380 is the clear winner in compute-oriented and modern API workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A380 scores 38,224 against the Quadro K5000's 11,418, a 70.1% margin. Similarly, in Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc A380 posts 36,736 versus 11,169, a 69.6% lead. These are not marginal improvements; they represent a generational leap in raw throughput and API efficiency. The Arc A380 also brings hardware ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which the Quadro K5000 lacks entirely.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000, by contrast, has no benchmark victories in the recorded head-to-head data. However, its strengths lie elsewhere. It is built on a mature 28 nm Kepler architecture with a 256-bit memory bus and 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which historically made it suitable for professional visualization workloads. The database shows its average benchmark score across all tests is 9,637, placing it at the 46th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (0.3% faster) and the Tesla C2070 at 9,716 (0.8% faster). The Arc A380, with an average score of 8,558, sits at the 44th percentile, with its closest competitor being the AMD FirePro W5170M at 8,595 (0.4% faster).

In practical terms, the Arc A380 wins where modern APIs, compute shaders, and ray tracing matter. The Quadro K5000 wins nowhere in the recorded benchmarks, but its 4 GB GDDR5 memory and dual-slot professional form factor may still appeal to legacy software environments that rely on older driver stacks. The data, however, is unambiguous: the Arc A380 dominates in every head-to-head test recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and design philosophies. The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Arc A380 uses Intel's DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, built on a much newer 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors in just 157 mm², a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. That is nearly four times the transistor density, which explains the Arc A380's higher compute throughput despite having fewer shading units.

The Quadro K5000 has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Arc A380 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite fewer cores, the Arc A380 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 65.60 GPixel/s and 131.2 GTexel/s versus 22.59 GPixel/s and 90.37 GTexel/s for the Quadro. Clock speeds tell part of the story. The Quadro runs at a fixed 706 MHz with no boost variation. The Arc A380 runs at 2000 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost.

Memory is another major divider. The Quadro K5000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A380 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a narrower 96-bit bus, yet achieves 186.0 GB/s thanks to a much higher effective memory speed of 15.5 Gbps. The Quadro's memory runs at 5.4 Gbps effective.

Feature support also diverges sharply. The Quadro K5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc A380 also includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Kepler-based Quadro. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Arc A380 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Arc A380 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A380. Its FP32 throughput is 4.198 TFLOPS, nearly double the Quadro K5000's 2.169 TFLOPS. The Arc A380 also supports FP16 at 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Q: Does the Quadro K5000 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro K5000 has no ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A380 includes 8 ray tracing cores as part of its Xe-HPG architecture.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A380, with 186.0 GB/s, slightly ahead of the Quadro K5000's 172.8 GB/s. The Arc A380 achieves this with a 96-bit bus and GDDR6 memory, while the Quadro uses a wider 256-bit bus with GDDR5.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K5000 has an average benchmark score of 9,637, placing it at the 46th percentile. The Arc A380 averages 8,558, at the 44th percentile. Despite being older, the Quadro has a slightly higher average, but the Arc A380 wins decisively in compute and modern API tests.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W and requires a 300 W suggested PSU, with a single 6-pin power connector. The Arc A380 has a 75 W TDP, a 250 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card supports newer display standards?

A: The Arc A380. It offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0. The Quadro K5000 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro K5000 is built on a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The Arc A380 uses a 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. Transistor density is 12.0 million per square millimeter for the Quadro versus 45.9 million for the Arc A380.

Clock speeds: the Quadro runs at 706 MHz base and boost, with memory at 5.4 Gbps effective. The Arc A380 runs at 2000 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, with memory at 15.5 Gbps effective.

Memory: the Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s. The Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s.

Compute units: the Quadro has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Arc A380 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, plus 8 ray tracing cores.

Rates: the Quadro achieves 22.59 GPixel/s and 90.37 GTexel/s. The Arc A380 achieves 65.60 GPixel/s and 131.2 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs: the Quadro has a 122 W TDP, dual-slot width, a 1x 6-pin connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Arc A380 has a 75 W TDP, dual-slot width, a 1x 8-pin connector, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The Quadro measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Arc A380 measures 222 mm in length, 114 mm in height, and 42 mm in width.

Interfaces and outputs: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, with 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Arc A380 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, with 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

API support: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release and lifecycle: the Quadro K5000 launched on 2012-08-16, with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. The Arc A380 launched on 2022-06-13, with a launch MSRP of 149 USD. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The Arc A380's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these cards, and the Intel Arc A380 wins both by overwhelming margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A380 scores 38,224 against the Quadro K5000's 11,418. The delta is 70.1% in favor of the Arc A380. This test stresses general-purpose compute, and the results reflect the Arc A380's modern architecture, higher clocks, and nearly double FP32 throughput (4.198 TFLOPS versus 2.169 TFLOPS). The Quadro K5000, despite its professional pedigree, cannot keep pace in raw compute throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc A380 scores 36,736 versus 11,169 for the Quadro. The delta is 69.6% in favor of the Arc A380. Vulkan is a low-overhead API, and the Arc A380's support for Vulkan 1.4 gives it a significant advantage over the Quadro's Vulkan 1.2.175 implementation. The 8 ray tracing cores in the Arc A380 may also contribute to its Vulkan performance, though the test itself is not ray tracing specific.

These two results alone define the competitive landscape. The Quadro K5000's average benchmark score of 9,637 is higher than the Arc A380's 8,558, but that average is dragged down by the Arc A380's weaker legacy DirectX tests (PassMark DirectX 9 at 73, DirectX 10 at 37, DirectX 11 at 38, DirectX 12 at 35). The Arc A380's PassMark G3D score of 6,252 and GPU compute score of 2,762 show it is competitive in modern workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are more than three times higher than the Quadro's.

The Quadro K5000's nearest rivals in the database are the GTX 960M (9,645, 0.1% slower), Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653, 0.2% slower), Quadro P4000 (9,665, 0.3% slower), and Tesla C2070 (9,716, 0.8% slower). The Arc A380's nearest rivals are the FirePro W5170M (8,595, 0.4% slower), Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 1.1% faster), GeForce MX330 (8,458, 1.2% faster), and Radeon 880M (8,436, 1.4% faster). These comparisons show that the Quadro K5000 sits in a slightly higher performance tier on average, but the Arc A380's modern API and compute advantages are far more relevant for current software.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: for compute, modern graphics APIs, and ray tracing, the Intel Arc A380 is the superior part. For legacy professional workloads where the Quadro K5000's driver support and 256-bit memory bus were once valuable, the Quadro retains a niche, but the recorded benchmarks do not show a single test where it outperforms the Arc A380.