Intel Arc A530M vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

Intel Arc A530M and NVIDIA Quadro GV100 occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, and the benchmark data reflects that divergence clearly. The Quadro GV100, a Volta-generation workstation part, dominates the recorded compute and graphics tests by a wide margin, while the Arc A530M is a modern, efficient mobile chip that trades raw throughput for power economy and newer feature support. The database shows two benchmark comparisons, and the GV100 wins both, but the story is more nuanced when you factor in architecture, memory design, and intended use case.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the clear winner in raw performance. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 150004 against the Arc A530M’s 49735, a delta of -66.8% from the Intel part’s perspective. That means the GV100 delivers roughly three times the compute throughput in this workload. The Vulkan result follows the same pattern: 139526 for the GV100 versus 43492 for the Arc A530M, a -68.8% delta. If your priority is maximum number crunching, whether for rendering, simulation, or heavy GPU compute, the GV100 is the only choice between these two.

The Arc A530M wins where the GV100 cannot compete: efficiency and size. The Intel chip draws 65 W compared to 250 W for the Quadro, and it is an IGP form factor with no power connectors, while the GV100 is a dual-slot card requiring a 600 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector. The Arc also brings newer API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GV100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. For a portable or space-constrained system, the Arc A530M is the practical option, even if it loses every benchmark head-to-head.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The Arc A530M uses Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-256 chip, built on a 6 nm TSMC process. It packs 11,500 million transistors into a 269 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 42.8M per mm². The Quadro GV100 uses NVIDIA’s Volta architecture on the GV100 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm TSMC process. It has 21,100 million transistors spread across a massive 815 mm² die, with a lower transistor density of 25.9M per mm². The process advantage is clear: Intel fits nearly half the transistors into one-third the silicon area.

Core configurations tell a similar story of scale versus efficiency. The GV100 has 5120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs, plus 640 tensor cores. The Arc A530M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with 12 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The GV100’s raw throughput is far higher: 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 33.32 TFLOPS FP16, versus 3.994 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.987 TFLOPS FP16 for the Arc. Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA, with a 1132 MHz base and 1627 MHz boost against Intel’s 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost.

Memory is another major divide. The GV100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective). The Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). That is a 3.9x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro, which matters enormously for data-heavy workloads. The GV100 also has a 267 mm length and 111 mm height, a dual-slot card, while the Arc is an IGP with no dimensions recorded and portable-device-dependent outputs.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 if you need maximum compute performance and have the power budget and physical space to accommodate it. The data shows it is 66.8% ahead in OpenCL and 68.8% ahead in Vulkan, with 32 GB of HBM2 memory and 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth that the Arc cannot approach. It also has 640 tensor cores, which are absent from the Intel part, making it the better option for any tensor-based workload. The GV100 sits at the 80th percentile against all GPUs in the database, and its nearest rivals include the RTX 5070 Ti Mobile and AMD Radeon Pro Duo, with deltas of 0.2% and -0.9% respectively. It is an end-of-life product, but it remains a compute powerhouse.

Pick the Intel Arc A530M if efficiency, modern API support, and a compact form factor matter more than raw scores. It draws 65 W, requires no power connectors, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, which the GV100 lacks. Its 85th percentile ranking against all GPUs is actually higher than the GV100’s 80th, because the database averages across a broader set of workloads and the Arc’s efficiency profile helps it relative to the field. It also has ray tracing cores, which the GV100 lacks entirely. For a thin-and-light laptop or a system where power draw and heat are constraints, the Arc A530M is the sensible choice despite losing both recorded head-to-head tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is significantly faster. It scores 150004 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 49735 for the Arc A530M, a -66.8% delta, and 139526 in Vulkan versus 43492, a -68.8% delta.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Arc A530M support newer graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The Arc A530M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro GV100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Arc A530M has a 65 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The Quadro GV100 has a 250 W TDP, uses a single 8-pin power connector, and has a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the Quadro GV100 has tensor cores, with 640 of them. The Arc A530M has no tensor cores but does include 12 ray tracing cores, which the GV100 lacks.

Q: What are the form factor differences?

A: The Arc A530M is an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro GV100 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head comparisons, and the Quadro GV100 wins both by a substantial margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GV100 posts 150004 against 49735 for the Arc A530M. That is a -66.8% delta from the Intel side, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers approximately three times the OpenCL score. This is the largest gap in the head-to-head set, and it reflects the GV100’s massive advantage in shading units, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput. The Arc’s 3.994 TFLOPS FP32 simply cannot compete with 16.66 TFLOPS, and the 868.4 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth compounds the issue in memory-bound OpenCL workloads.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the GV100 scoring 139526 against the Arc’s 43492, a -68.8% delta. The percentage gap is slightly larger than OpenCL, suggesting the NVIDIA architecture scales even better in this API. The GV100’s 5120 shading units and 320 TMUs provide a wide execution width that Vulkan can exploit, while the Arc’s 1536 shading units are more limited. The Arc does have newer architecture features like ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, but neither helps in a pure Vulkan compute test.

Outside the head-to-head, the GV100 has additional Passmark scores that the Arc lacks entirely: 19650 in G3D, 9069 in GPU compute, 836 in G2D, and a range of DirectX scores from 84 to 207. These are not directly comparable to the Arc, but they reinforce the GV100’s profile as a general-purpose compute and graphics card. The Arc’s average benchmark score is 46614, while the GV100’s is 35520, but that difference is misleading because the Arc has only two recorded tests, both of which are relatively strong for its class. The GV100’s average is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX scores, which are low for a card of its compute capability, likely reflecting driver maturity or workload mismatch in those legacy tests.

Percentile rankings add context. The Arc A530M sits at the 85th percentile against all GPUs, while the GV100 sits at the 80th. Despite losing both head-to-head tests, the Arc ranks higher overall because its two scores are consistently strong, whereas the GV100’s Passmark results are uneven. The nearest rivals for the Arc include the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46601 (0% delta), the RX 6550M at 46702 (-0.2%), the RTX A2000 at 46043 (1.2%), and the RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45972 (1.4%). The GV100’s nearest rivals are the RTX 5070 Ti Mobile at 35435 (0.2% delta), AMD Radeon Pro Duo at 35860 (-0.9%), NVIDIA T1000 at 36289 (-2.1%), and NVIDIA A2 at 34690 (2.4%). These clusters show that the Arc competes with mid-range mobile and workstation GPUs, while the GV100 sits among high-end mobile and dual-GPU workstation parts.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The process node is the most dramatic: Intel uses 6 nm TSMC, NVIDIA uses 12 nm TSMC. Transistor counts are 11,500 million for the Arc and 21,100 million for the GV100. Die size is 269 mm² versus 815 mm², and transistor density is 42.8M per mm² versus 25.9M per mm². Clock speeds favor NVIDIA: 1132 MHz base and 1627 MHz boost versus 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. Memory speed also differs, with the Arc at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) and the GV100 at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective), though the GV100’s much wider bus compensates.

Core counts are vastly different. The Arc has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, plus 12 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The GV100 has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, plus 640 tensor cores and no ray tracing cores. Pixel rate is 62.40 GPixel/s for the Arc versus 208.3 GPixel/s for the GV100. Texture rate is 124.8 GTexel/s versus 520.6 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.994 TFLOPS versus 16.66 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 7.987 TFLOPS versus 33.32 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator: 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 32 GB HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868. Power draw, power delivery, and physical size all favor the Arc. The GV100 is a dual-slot card with a 267 mm length, 111 mm height, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, and a 250 W TDP. The Arc is an IGP with a 65 W TDP and portable-device-dependent outputs. Bus interfaces also differ: the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8, the GV100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Production status separates them further: the Arc is listed as Active, while the GV100 is End-of-life. Release dates are 2023-07-31 for the Arc and 2018-03-26 for the GV100, and the GV100 has a launch MSRP of 8,999 USD, which the Arc does not have recorded.