Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Arc A380 is the clear performance winner in this matchup, taking both recorded head-to-head benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A380 scores 38,224 against the Quadro M2000M's 10,057, a 73.7% advantage. The Vulkan gap is nearly identical: 36,736 versus 9,606, a 73.9% lead for Intel. If your workload is compute-heavy or leverages modern graphics APIs, the Arc A380 is the only rational choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M still has a role, but it is narrow. Its 47th percentile ranking across all GPUs sits slightly above the Arc A380's 44th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 9,832 beats the Arc's 8,558. That seems contradictory given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the broader benchmark pool: the Quadro's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (delta -0.1%), AMD FirePro W5000 (delta +0.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (delta +0.5%). The Arc A380's nearest rivals are lower-tier parts like the AMD FirePro W5170M (delta -0.4%) and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (delta +1.2%). So the Quadro M2000M sits in a slightly stronger overall performance class, even though it loses decisively in the two tests where both were measured.

Pick the Arc A380 for raw throughput, modern API support, and longevity. Pick the Quadro M2000M only if you need a legacy MXM module for an older mobile workstation and your software is tied to the NVIDIA ecosystem. For anything else, the Arc A380's compute lead is too large to ignore.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design eras and philosophies. The Quadro M2000M uses NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process. Its GM107 chip packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, for a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Arc A380 uses Intel's Xe-HPG architecture (Alchemist generation) on a 6 nm TSMC node. Its DG2-128 chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter. That is a 3.6x density advantage from the newer process.

Core counts differ sharply. The Quadro has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Arc A380 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Intel part also includes 8 ray tracing cores; the Quadro has none. Neither GPU lists tensor cores.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A380 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, but delivers 186.0 GB/s. The narrower bus is compensated by much faster memory clocks: 15.5 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps effective. Pixel and texture rates follow the core count gap: the Arc reaches 65.60 GPixel/s and 131.2 GTexel/s, while the Quadro manages 18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 4.198 TFLOPS for the Arc versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro. The Arc also lists FP16 at 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1); the Quadro has no listed FP16 figure.

API support matters for modern software. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12_2 feature level on the Arc enables features the Maxwell part cannot expose.

Physical design and connectivity also differ. The Quadro is an MXM-A (3.0) module with no power connectors, drawing 55 W. The Arc is a dual-slot card using PCIe 4.0 x8, requires a single 8-pin power connector, draws 75 W, and lists a 250 W suggested PSU. The Arc measures 222 mm long, 114 mm tall, and 42 mm wide. Display outputs are "portable device dependent" on the Quadro, while the Arc provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The Intel Arc A380 wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 38,224 versus 10,057 for the Quadro M2000M, a 73.7% lead. The Vulkan test shows a similar 73.9% gap, with 36,736 against 9,606.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000M have any performance advantage?

A: Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 9,832, higher than the Arc A380's 8,558. It also ranks at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, versus 44th for the Arc. However, in the direct head-to-head tests, the Arc wins both.

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Arc A380 delivers 186.0 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus. The Quadro M2000M provides 80.19 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The Arc has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Can the Quadro M2000M do ray tracing?

A: No. It has no ray tracing cores. The Arc A380 includes 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which is the relevant API tier for ray tracing features.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro M2000M is rated at 55 W and uses no power connectors; it is an MXM module. The Arc A380 is rated at 75 W, uses a single 8-pin connector, and suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card fits in a desktop PC?

A: The Arc A380 is a dual-slot PCIe 4.0 x8 card with standard display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0). The Quadro M2000M is an MXM-A (3.0) module with portable-device-dependent outputs, so it is not a drop-in desktop card.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | Intel Arc A380 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) | Alchemist (Arc 3) |

| Process node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 7,200 million |

| Die size | 148 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.6M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1098 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1137 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective | 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 96 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 186.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 640 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 40 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Ray tracing cores | None | 8 |

| Pixel rate | 18.19 GPixel/s | 65.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 45.48 GTexel/s | 131.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,455.4 GFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 75 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |

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

| Release date | 2015-12-02 | 2022-06-13 |

| Production status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only two tests where both GPUs have scores, and the Arc A380 wins both by wide margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A380 posts 38,224 against the Quadro's 10,057. The delta is 73.7% in favor of Intel. This is a compute test that stresses raw shader throughput, and the numbers line up with the specification gap: the Arc has 1,024 shading units against 640, and FP32 performance of 4.198 TFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS. The Arc is roughly 2.9x ahead in FP32, and the OpenCL score reflects a similar magnitude of advantage.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc scores 36,736 against 9,606, a 73.9% delta. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API, and the Arc's modern architecture with DirectX 12 Ultimate support and 8 ray tracing cores likely contributes to its strong showing. The Quadro, with DirectX 12 (11_0) support and no ray tracing hardware, cannot keep pace.

There are no recorded wins for the Quadro M2000M in the head-to-head set. Its overall average benchmark score of 9,832 is higher than the Arc's 8,558, but that average includes a different mix of tests. The Arc's Passmark G3D score of 6,252 and its OpenCL score of 38,224 pull its average up, while its low Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores (73, 37, 38, and 35 respectively) drag it down. The Quadro has only two recorded benchmarks, both in the 9,600 to 10,057 range, so its average is based on a narrower sample.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380 wins every direct comparison in the database. Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan both go to Intel by roughly 74%. For compute tasks, modern API workloads, or anything that can use more than 4 GB of memory, the Arc is the pick. Its 6 GB GDDR6 buffer and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a substantial memory advantage, and its 8 ray tracing cores plus DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it suitable for current-generation graphics features. The Arc also has a higher pixel rate (65.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (131.2 GTexel/s), which matters for resolution-heavy rendering.

The Quadro M2000M does not win any recorded benchmark against the Arc, but it does hold a higher percentile rank (47th versus 44th) and a higher average benchmark score (9,832 versus 8,558). Its nearest rivals are stronger parts: the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (delta -0.1%) and AMD FirePro W5000 (delta +0.3%) sit essentially at parity, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is only 0.5% behind. The Arc's nearest rivals, by contrast, include the AMD FirePro W5170M (delta -0.4%), AMD Radeon HD 8870M (delta +1.1%), NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (delta +1.2%), and AMD Radeon 880M (delta +1.4%). This suggests the Quadro competes in a higher performance tier overall, even if the Arc wins the specific tests where both have data.

The practical split is simple. If you need a mobile workstation GPU in MXM format with NVIDIA's Quadro branding and 55 W power draw, the M2000M is the only option that fits that form factor. If you are building or upgrading a desktop system with PCIe slots, the Arc A380 is the stronger performer in every measured metric. The Arc also offers modern display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0) and a dual-slot design, making it a straightforward desktop install. The Quadro's end-of-life status and 2015 release date (versus the Arc's 2022 release) further tilt the recommendation toward Intel for new builds, while the Quadro remains relevant only for legacy hardware replacements.