Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The Intel Arc A380 and NVIDIA Quadro P5000 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by six years of architectural evolution and targeting entirely different market segments. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split: the Quadro P5000 dominates in raw compute and legacy DirectX workloads, while the Arc A380 shows a single, spectacular victory in Vulkan that highlights its modern design. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, explains the architectural reasons behind the performance gaps, and identifies which card is better suited for specific tasks based solely on the measured data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 wins 9 out of 10 head-to-head benchmarks, and its victories are often decisive. The most lopsided results come from PassMark’s legacy DirectX tests, where the Quadro’s mature driver stack and older architecture shine. In PassMark DirectX 11, the Quadro scores 102 against the Arc’s 38, a delta of -62.7% for the Intel card. Similarly, in DirectX 9, the Quadro posts 170 versus 73, a -57.1% difference. These are not close contests; the Quadro more than doubles the Arc’s performance in both cases. Even in DirectX 10, the gap is substantial: 77 versus 37, a -51.9% delta.

The gap narrows somewhat in more modern workloads but remains firmly in NVIDIA’s favor. In PassMark DirectX 12, the Quadro scores 44 against the Arc’s 35, a -20.5% delta. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test shows a similar pattern, with the Quadro at 1330 and the Arc at 808, a -39.2% difference. The Quadro’s advantage extends to compute as well: PassMark GPU Compute shows 6508 versus 2762, a -57.6% delta, and Geekbench OpenCL shows 52509 versus 38224, a -27.2% delta. Even in 2D performance, the Quadro edges ahead with a PassMark G2D score of 674 versus 610, a -9.5% delta.

The single exception is striking. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Intel Arc A380 scores 36736, while the Quadro P5000 manages only 6342. That is a delta of 479.2% in Intel’s favor — a nearly six-fold advantage. This is not a small win; it is a categorical one. The Vulkan result suggests that the Arc’s modern architecture, with its explicit support for newer API features, is dramatically better suited to this workload than the Pascal-based Quadro. It is the only benchmark where the Arc is competitive, but it is competitive in a way that completely reverses the overall narrative.

The average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story than the head-to-head wins suggest. The Arc A380 has an average score of 8558, while the Quadro P5000 sits at 8039. However, these averages are skewed by the Vulkan outlier. Looking at the nearest rivals, the Arc A380’s average score places it just 0.4% below the AMD FirePro W5170M (8595), 1.1% above the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462), and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8458). The Quadro P5000’s average is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8040, 0% delta) and sits within 0.5% of the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053) and GRID K2 (8080). In terms of percentile ranking, the Arc A380 sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P5000 is at the 41st percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has a higher average benchmark score at 8558, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro P5000’s 8039. This is despite the Quadro winning 9 of 10 head-to-head tests, illustrating how a single large outlier (the Vulkan score) can influence an aggregate metric.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Intel Arc A380 scores 36736, which is 479.2% higher than the Quadro P5000’s 6342. This is the Arc’s only head-to-head win and represents a nearly six-fold performance advantage.

Q: What is the most significant loss for the Intel Arc A380?

A: The Arc’s worst relative performance comes in PassMark DirectX 11, where it scores 38 against the Quadro’s 102, a delta of -62.7%. The Quadro more than doubles the Arc’s score in this legacy API test.

Q: How do the two cards compare in compute performance?

A: The Quadro P5000 is substantially ahead in compute tasks. In PassMark GPU Compute, it scores 6508 versus the Arc’s 2762, a -57.6% delta. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 52509 versus 38224, a -27.2% delta.

Q: Do the cards have similar overall performance relative to their peers?

A: Yes, their percentile rankings are close. The Arc A380 sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P5000 is at the 41st percentile. Their nearest rivals also have similar average scores, with the Arc’s nearest rival (AMD FirePro W5170M) at 8595 and the Quadro’s nearest rival (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M) at 8040.

Q: Which card performs better in DirectX 12?

A: The Quadro P5000 wins in both DirectX 12 tests. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 1330 versus 808, a -39.2% delta. In PassMark DirectX 12, it scores 44 versus 35, a -20.5% delta.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The Intel Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 uses the GP104 chip based on the older Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts are identical at 7,200 million, but the die sizes differ dramatically: the Arc’s die is 157 mm², while the Quadro’s is 314 mm². This results in a transistor density of 45.9M per mm² for Intel versus 22.9M per mm² for NVIDIA, reflecting the much newer manufacturing process.

The memory subsystems are also very different. The Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro’s memory advantage is clear: more than double the capacity and over 55% more bandwidth. Clock speeds tell a different story, however. The Arc has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2050 MHz, while the Quadro runs at 1607 MHz base and 1733 MHz boost. The Arc’s memory also runs faster at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro’s 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective).

The compute unit configurations differ significantly. The Arc A380 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The Quadro P5000 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores at all. This explains the raw throughput numbers: the Arc delivers 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro delivers 8.873 TFLOPS FP32 and just 138.6 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64 ratio). The Pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s for the Arc versus 110.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and the texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s versus 277.3 GTexel/s.

The API support also differs. The Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro P5000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and its ray tracing cores are significant architectural advantages for modern games, even if the Quadro’s raw compute power is higher. The Quadro’s lack of ray tracing hardware and its limited FP16 capability (1:64 ratio) highlight its age, while the Arc’s 2:1 FP16 ratio and dedicated ray tracing cores point to a more future-facing design.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between legacy and modern workloads. The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the overwhelming winner in 9 of 10 benchmarks, with particularly large margins in DirectX 9, 10, 11, and compute tasks. Its 2560 shading units and 16 GB of memory make it a formidable card for traditional rasterization and professional compute workloads. The Quadro’s victory in PassMark G3D (12634 versus 6252, a -50.5% delta) confirms its overall rasterization superiority.

However, the Intel Arc A380’s Vulkan result cannot be ignored. A 479.2% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan is not a marginal improvement; it is a transformative one. For any workload that heavily leverages Vulkan, the Arc A380 is categorically the better choice. The Arc’s modern architecture, with DirectX 12 Ultimate support and ray tracing cores, also gives it a feature set that the Pascal-based Quadro simply does not possess.

The choice between these two cards depends entirely on the target workload. For users running legacy DirectX applications, professional compute tasks, or any workload that prioritizes raw FP32 throughput, the Quadro P5000 is the clear winner. For users working with modern Vulkan-based applications, the Arc A380 offers performance that the Quadro cannot match. The Quadro’s 16 GB of memory also makes it the obvious choice for memory-intensive tasks like large texture loads or complex scenes, while the Arc’s 6 GB may be a limiting factor in such scenarios. The data does not support a single winner; it supports two distinct use cases.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The process node is 6 nm for the Arc A380 versus 16 nm for the Quadro P5000. The die size is 157 mm² versus 314 mm². Transistor density is 45.9M per mm² versus 22.9M per mm². The base clock is 2000 MHz versus 1607 MHz, and the boost clock is 2050 MHz versus 1733 MHz. Memory speed is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective). Memory size is 6 GB versus 16 GB, with GDDR6 versus GDDR5X type, and a 96-bit versus 256-bit bus width. Bandwidth is 186.0 GB/s versus 288.5 GB/s.

The shading units count is 1024 versus 2560, TMUs are 64 versus 160, and ROPs are 32 versus 64. The Arc has 8 ray tracing cores, while the Quadro has none. Pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s versus 110.9 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s versus 277.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.198 TFLOPS versus 8.873 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64). TDP is 75 W versus 180 W, and the suggested PSU is 250 W versus 450 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 versus 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The Arc measures 222 mm in length, 114 mm in height, and 42 mm in width, while the Quadro measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the winner in legacy DirectX workloads. Its PassMark DirectX 9 score of 170 more than doubles the Arc’s 73, and its DirectX 10 score of 77 versus 37 is similarly dominant. The Quadro is also the clear choice for DirectX 11 applications, with a score of 102 versus 38. For compute tasks, the Quadro’s PassMark GPU Compute score of 6508 versus 2762 makes it the superior option. Its 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 16 GB of memory make it well-suited for tasks that require substantial compute throughput or large memory footprints. The Quadro also wins in DirectX 12, with both the 3DMark Steel Nomad (1330 versus 808) and PassMark DirectX 12 (44 versus 35) results in its favor.

The Intel Arc A380 wins in Vulkan, and it wins decisively. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 36736 versus 6342 represents a 479.2% advantage. This suggests that for any application that leverages the Vulkan API, the Arc A380 is dramatically faster. The Arc’s modern architecture, including its 8 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, gives it a feature advantage that the Quadro cannot match. Its 6 nm process and higher clock speeds (2000 MHz base versus 1607 MHz) also indicate a more efficient design, with a TDP of 75 W versus the Quadro’s 180 W. For users prioritizing modern API support and efficiency, the Arc A380 is the better choice, despite its losses in nearly every other benchmark.