Intel Arc A530M vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench results present a split decision between the Intel Arc A530M and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000, with each card claiming one benchmark victory. The most decisive margin comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Intel Arc A530M scores 49,735 against the Quadro M6000's 39,688 — a 25.3% advantage for Intel. This is a substantial gap, placing the Arc A530M well ahead of its rival in raw compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

However, the tables turn in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 scores 46,913, while the Intel Arc A530M trails at 43,492 — a 7.3% deficit for Intel. The Vulkan result shows the older Maxwell architecture still holds its own in modern graphics API performance, despite being released years earlier. The average benchmark scores reinforce this mixed picture: the Arc A530M averages 46,614 across both tests, while the Quadro M6000 averages 43,301, giving Intel a roughly 7.7% overall edge based on these two data points.

Contextualizing these results through the nearest rivals data, the Arc A530M's average of 46,614 places it effectively level with the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46,601, 0% delta) and just 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6550M (46,702). It also sits 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46,043) and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972). The Quadro M6000's average of 43,301 puts it 0.1% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667) by 0.8%. These percentile rankings show both cards performing in the 84-85th percentile against all GPUs, indicating they are closely matched in overall standing despite their architectural differences.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A530M demonstrates its strength in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by its 25.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. This advantage likely stems from its modern Xe-HPG architecture, which brings contemporary compute features and efficiency to the table. The Arc A530M also offers a more balanced average score profile, with its Vulkan score (43,492) sitting closer to its OpenCL score (49,735) than the Quadro M6000's scores do. For users running OpenCL-based applications — which include many scientific, engineering, and media processing tools — the data clearly favors Intel.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000, conversely, wins decisively in Vulkan performance, outpacing the Arc A530M by 7.3% in that specific test. This suggests that for graphics API workloads that leverage Vulkan — such as certain game engines, CAD visualization tools, and emerging graphics applications — the older Quadro remains competitive or superior. Additionally, the Quadro M6000 offers 12 GB of memory versus the Arc A530M's 8 GB, which could be significant for workloads that exceed 8 GB of VRAM usage, though this is not directly reflected in the benchmark scores. The Quadro also has a 384-bit memory bus width compared to Intel's 128-bit, and its memory bandwidth of 317.4 GB/s substantially exceeds the Arc A530M's 224.0 GB/s — a factor that may matter in memory-intensive scenarios not captured by these specific benchmarks.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different eras of graphics architecture. The Intel Arc A530M is built on the DG2-256 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist generation (Arc 5 Mobile). It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 11,500 million transistors packed into a 269 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 42.8 million per square millimeter. Its base clock runs at 900 MHz with a boost up to 1300 MHz. The memory subsystem uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000, by contrast, uses the GM200 chip with the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, from the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. It is built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 8,000 million transistors on a much larger 601 mm² die — resulting in a transistor density of just 13.3M per square millimeter. Its base clock is 988 MHz with a boost to 1114 MHz. The memory configuration is notably different: 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, offering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

These architectural differences produce significant specification gaps. The Quadro M6000 has double the shading units (3,072 vs 1,536), double the texture mapping units (192 vs 96), and double the ROPs (96 vs 48). Its pixel rate of 106.9 GPixel/s far exceeds the Arc A530M's 62.40 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 213.9 GTexel/s nearly doubles Intel's 124.8 GTexel/s. The Quadro also leads in FP32 compute with 6.844 TFLOPS versus the Arc's 3.994 TFLOPS. However, the Arc A530M includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro M6000. The Arc also supports FP16 at 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro lists no FP16 capability. In API support, the Arc A530M reaches DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M6000 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1); both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A530M has an average benchmark score of 46,614, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 averages 43,301.

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

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A530M scores 49,735 versus the Quadro M6000's 39,688, giving Intel a 25.3% advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Quadro M6000 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 46,913 compared to the Arc A530M's 43,492, a 7.3% margin.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth on a 384-bit bus, while the Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The Arc A530M has 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die (6 nm process), while the Quadro M6000 has 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die (28 nm process).

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute power?

A: The Quadro M6000 delivers 6.844 TFLOPS FP32, while the Arc A530M provides 3.994 TFLOPS.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A530M | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 |

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

| Chip | DG2-256 | GM200 |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 5 Mobile) | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 11,500 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 269 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 42.8M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | 988 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1300 MHz | 1114 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 317.4 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz / 14 Gbps effective | 1653 MHz / 6.6 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 96 | 192 |

| ROPs | 48 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 62.40 GPixel/s | 106.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 124.8 GTexel/s | 213.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.994 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 65 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | None | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | None listed | 267 mm / 10.5 inches length, 111 mm / 4.4 inches height |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-07-31 | 2015-03-20 |

| Predecessor | None | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | None | Quadro Pascal |

# The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced choice depending on workload priorities. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the Intel Arc A530M is the clear winner, delivering a 25.3% advantage in that benchmark and a higher average score overall (46,614 vs 43,301). Its modern 6 nm Xe-HPG architecture brings ray tracing support, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and FP16 compute capability — features entirely absent from the Quadro M6000. The Arc A530M also operates at a dramatically lower 65 W TDP versus 250 W, and its active production status suggests ongoing driver and software support.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 should not be dismissed. It wins the Vulkan benchmark by 7.3%, offers 50% more memory (12 GB vs 8 GB), and provides substantially higher memory bandwidth (317.4 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s). Its raw compute specifications are also superior — double the shading units, double the TMUs and ROPs, and nearly double the FP32 throughput (6.844 TFLOPS vs 3.994 TFLOPS). The Quadro's 384-bit memory bus and larger frame buffer make it potentially better suited for large dataset workloads and multi-display configurations, with its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs being a fixed feature rather than the Arc's portable-device-dependent outputs.

The production status difference is noteworthy: the Arc A530M is active, while the Quadro M6000 is end-of-life. The Quadro's 2015 release date and successor (Quadro Pascal) indicate it is legacy hardware. Ultimately, the choice hinges on whether the user needs modern features and OpenCL efficiency (Arc A530M) or raw compute throughput, larger memory capacity, and Vulkan performance (Quadro M6000). The benchmark split — one win each — reflects a genuine trade-off rather than a clear overall victor.