GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and Intel Arc A380 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they represent radically different approaches to the GPU market. The Quadro P2200 is a professional workstation card built on NVIDIA's mature Pascal architecture, while the Arc A380 is Intel's entry-level discrete GPU based on the newer Xe-HPG architecture. Benchmark data reveals a clear split between legacy DirectX workloads, where the Quadro dominates, and modern compute and Vulkan tasks, where the Arc pulls ahead. Both cards occupy the same performance percentile (44th) among all GPUs, yet their average benchmark scores differ by only 1.5% in the Quadro's favor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 comes in the Passmark DirectX 9 test, where it scores 167 against the Arc A380's 73, a delta of 128.8%. This is the largest margin in any benchmark between the two cards. The Quadro also wins decisively in Passmark G3D, scoring 9364 versus 6252, a 49.8% advantage. In DirectX 11, the Quadro leads with a score of 70 compared to the Arc's 38, representing an 84.2% difference. The Quadro's Passmark G2D score of 881 is 44.4% higher than the Arc's 610, and its Passmark GPU Compute result of 3921 beats the Arc's 2762 by 42%.

However, the Intel Arc A380 fights back where modern APIs and general-purpose compute are concerned. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc scores 38224 against the Quadro's 32344, a 15.4% lead. The Vulkan test shows a similar pattern: the Arc hits 36736 while the Quadro manages 31351, a 14.7% advantage. The Arc also edges out the Quadro in Passmark DirectX 12, scoring 35 versus 33, a 5.7% margin. This split is telling: the Quadro's Pascal architecture was designed for an era where DirectX 11 and older APIs were standard, while the Arc A380's Xe-HPG architecture is built with modern API support in mind, including DirectX 12 Ultimate.

The overall benchmark picture is one of near-parity in aggregate scores. The Quadro's average benchmark score is 8686, while the Arc's is 8558. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 8743 (0.7% higher) and the RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8746 (0.7% higher), while the Arc's closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W5170M at 8595 (0.4% higher). The two cards sit on opposite sides of a cluster of mid-range GPUs, with the Quadro's average score being 1.5% higher than the Arc's. When comparing directly, the Quadro wins 6 of the 9 head-to-head benchmarks, but the Arc wins the three that matter most for modern workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher theoretical compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has a higher FP32 rating at 4.198 TFLOPS compared to the Quadro P2200's 3.822 TFLOPS. The Arc also has a much higher FP16 rating at 8.397 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro's FP16 is just 59.72 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio.

Q: How do the two cards compare in real-world benchmark averages?

A: The Quadro P2200 has an average benchmark score of 8686, which is 1.5% higher than the Arc A380's 8558. Both cards occupy the 44th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are closely matched in overall performance.

Q: Which card is better for legacy DirectX applications?

A: The Quadro P2200 is overwhelmingly better for legacy DirectX titles. In DirectX 9, it scores 167 versus the Arc's 73, a 128.8% advantage. In DirectX 11, the Quadro's 70 score is 84.2% higher than the Arc's 38.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380 support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A380 has 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature the Quadro P2200 lacks entirely. The Quadro has no RT cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The Quadro P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus, providing 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A380 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, providing 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has a higher pixel rate at 65.60 GPixel/s compared to the Quadro P2200's 59.72 GPixel/s. The Arc also leads in texture rate at 131.2 GTexel/s versus the Quadro's 119.4 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP106 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 16 nm process. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 22.0 million per mm². The Intel Arc A380 uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a much higher transistor density of 45.9 million per mm².

The shader configurations differ significantly. The Quadro P2200 has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The Arc A380 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. While the Arc has fewer shading units, its higher clock speeds and newer architecture allow it to achieve higher fill rates. The Arc also includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature completely absent from the Pascal-based Quadro. Neither card has tensor cores.

Memory technology marks another key architectural divergence. The Quadro uses GDDR5X memory running at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed, while the Arc uses GDDR6 at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective speed. The Quadro's wider 160-bit bus gives it slightly more bandwidth despite older memory, at 200.2 GB/s versus the Arc's 186.0 GB/s. The Arc compensates with a larger 6 GB frame buffer compared to the Quadro's 5 GB.

API support reflects the generational gap. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc's DirectX 12 Ultimate support enables features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading that the older Quadro cannot handle at the hardware level.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds differ substantially. The Quadro P2200 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1493 MHz, while the Arc A380 runs at a base of 2000 MHz and boosts to 2050 MHz. This clock advantage helps the Arc achieve higher peak throughput despite fewer shading units.

Power and physical design separate the two cards. Both have a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, but the Quadro is single-slot and requires no power connectors, while the Arc is dual-slot and needs a single 8-pin connector. The Quadro measures 201 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Arc is longer at 222 mm, taller at 114 mm, and has a width of 42 mm.

The bus interface differs as well. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Arc's newer PCIe standard provides twice the per-lane bandwidth, which can matter for data transfer despite having half the lanes. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Arc provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

Release timing and generation placement vary. The Quadro P2200 was released on 2019-06-09 as part of the Quadro Pascal (Px200) generation, succeeding Quadro Maxwell and preceding Quadro Volta. The Arc A380 was released on 2022-06-13 as part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, succeeding Xe Graphics and preceding Battlemage. The Arc carries a launch MSRP of 149 USD.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of use cases. For anyone running DirectX 9, DirectX 11, or other legacy workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the superior choice. Its 128.8% lead in DirectX 9 and 84.2% lead in DirectX 11 are decisive margins that no other benchmark metric can overcome for those specific applications. The Quadro's 49.8% advantage in Passmark G3D and 42% lead in GPU compute further cement its position for traditional graphics and compute tasks.

The Intel Arc A380 is the better pick for modern API adoption and raw compute throughput. Its 15.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 14.7% lead in Vulkan show that it handles contemporary compute workloads with greater efficiency. The Arc's higher FP32 throughput of 4.198 TFLOPS versus 3.822 TFLOPS, along with its 8 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, make it the more future-proof option for software that leverages these features. The Arc also offers 6 GB of memory versus the Quadro's 5 GB, which can help in memory-constrained scenarios.

The aggregate performance is nearly identical, with the Quadro's 8686 average score just 1.5% higher than the Arc's 8558. Both cards sit at the 44th percentile among all GPUs, meaning neither offers a meaningful overall performance advantage. The deciding factor should be software compatibility: legacy applications strongly favor the Quadro, while modern Vulkan and OpenCL workloads favor the Arc. The Quadro's end-of-life status and lack of modern features like ray tracing make it a niche choice for compatibility-driven environments, while the Arc's newer architecture and API support make it the more balanced option for a broader range of current software.