Intel Arc A530M vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

The Intel Arc A530M and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB represent two very different eras of GPU design, and their benchmark results reflect that divide. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A530M posts a decisive victory, scoring 49,735 against the Quadro’s 40,098, a 24% advantage. However, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, the older NVIDIA card strikes back, winning with a score of 46,425 compared to Intel’s 43,492, a 6.3% lead for the Quadro. The head-to-head record is a 1-1 split, making the choice between them entirely dependent on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking difference appears in the OpenCL benchmark, where the Intel Arc A530M is the clear winner. With a score of 49,735 versus the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 40,098, the Intel part holds a 24% lead. This is a substantial margin that indicates the Arc A530M’s architecture is far more efficient at handling the general-purpose compute tasks that OpenCL often represents. The Intel card’s average benchmark score of 46,614 also places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro’s average of 43,262 sits in the 83rd percentile. The data suggests that in raw compute throughput, the newer Intel architecture has a significant edge over the older Maxwell-based NVIDIA design.

The tables turn in the Vulkan benchmark, though the margin is much narrower. The Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 46,425, defeating the Arc A530M’s 43,492 by 6.3%. This is a notable result, as Vulkan is a modern low-level API that often favors newer hardware. The fact that a 2016-era professional card can outperform a 2023 mobile part in this test suggests that NVIDIA’s driver maturity and the Quadro’s massive 384-bit memory bus provide tangible benefits in certain graphics-heavy workloads. The Quadro’s 317.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth is significantly higher than the Arc’s 224.0 GB/s, which likely contributes to this Vulkan win.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Arc A530M’s average score of 46,614 puts it in the same performance class as the AMD Radeon RX 5600M, which scores 46,601, and the AMD Radeon RX 6550M, which scores 46,702. The Intel part is essentially neck-and-neck with these competitors, trailing the RX 6550M by just 0.2% and leading the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.2%. The Quadro M6000 24 GB, with its average of 43,262, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223), showing that despite its age, it still holds its own against modern mid-range hardware.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A530M is the superior choice for compute-focused tasks, as evidenced by its dominant OpenCL performance. Its 24% advantage in that benchmark points to strengths in areas like data processing, scientific simulations, and other workloads that leverage raw FP32 throughput. The card’s 3.994 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while lower than the Quadro’s 6.844 TFLOPS, is delivered in a much more power-efficient package at 65 W versus 250 W. This efficiency, combined with its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, makes it a strong candidate for mobile workstations where battery life and thermal limits are primary concerns. The Arc A530M also features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely, giving it a clear advantage in any modern rendering pipeline that utilizes RT effects.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins in scenarios that demand massive memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 24 GB of GDDR5 memory, paired with a 384-bit bus, provides 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 42% higher than the Arc’s 224.0 GB/s. This makes the Quadro the better choice for large-scale visualization, high-resolution texture loading, and multi-display setups where memory capacity is the limiting factor. Its Vulkan victory, despite being a smaller margin, suggests that it also holds an advantage in certain game engines and professional applications that are optimized for NVIDIA’s driver stack. The Quadro’s dual-slot design and 1x 8-pin power connector indicate it is meant for stationary workstations where size and power draw are secondary to raw capability.

The benchmark data shows a clear split: the Arc A530M is a modern, efficient compute engine, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB is a high-capacity memory specialist. Professionals working with AI inference, compute shaders, or ray-traced content would favor the Intel card, while those dealing with massive datasets, 3D modeling, or video editing with large timelines would find the Quadro’s memory resources more appealing.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A530M has a higher average benchmark score of 46,614, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 43,262.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins the Vulkan test with a score of 46,425, while the Intel Arc A530M scores 43,492, giving NVIDIA a 6.3% lead.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB offers 24 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is three times the 8 GB of GDDR6 found on the Intel Arc A530M.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The Intel Arc A530M has a higher transistor count at 11,500 million, despite having a smaller die size of 269 mm², compared to the Quadro’s 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A530M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A530M features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc A530M has a TDP of 65 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB has a much higher TDP of 250 W.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly across almost every specification. The Intel Arc A530M is built on a 6 nm process by TSMC, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB uses a 28 nm process. This leads to a massive difference in transistor density: the Intel chip packs 42.8M transistors per mm², whereas the NVIDIA chip only manages 13.3M per mm². The Intel die is 269 mm², while the NVIDIA die is larger at 601 mm².

Clock speeds also diverge. The Arc A530M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz, while the Quadro has a higher base clock of 988 MHz but a lower boost clock of 1114 MHz. Memory configurations are starkly different: the Arc uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro uses 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute resources also differ. The Intel card has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the NVIDIA card has double the shading units at 3072, along with 192 TMUs and 96 ROPs. The pixel rate and texture rate reflect this: the Quadro achieves 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s, while the Arc manages 62.40 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is also higher on the Quadro at 6.844 TFLOPS versus the Arc’s 3.994 TFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics are polar opposites. The Arc A530M is an integrated form factor (IGP) with a 65 W TDP and no power connectors, while the Quadro is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, a 1x 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 600 W PSU. The Quadro measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Intel, PCIe 3.0 x16 for the NVIDIA. Display outputs on the Quadro include 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Arc’s outputs are described as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The Intel Arc A530M is based on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-256 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation (Arc 5 Mobile). It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture on the GM200 chip, part of the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation, built on a 28 nm process, also by TSMC.

The most significant architectural advantage for the Intel card is its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing and mesh shaders. The Quadro, limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), cannot access these modern features. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the Intel card’s 12 ray tracing cores give it a hardware capability that the NVIDIA card simply does not possess.

The transistor density tells the story of process efficiency. Intel’s 11,500 million transistors are packed into a 269 mm² die, yielding a density of 42.8M per mm². NVIDIA’s 8,000 million transistors are spread across a much larger 601 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 13.3M per mm². This explains why the Intel card achieves competitive performance at a fraction of the power draw.

The Quadro’s architecture, while older, is not without merits. Its massive 384-bit memory interface and 24 GB of VRAM are direct results of a design philosophy that prioritized memory capacity for professional visualization workloads. The absence of ray tracing hardware and the older DirectX feature level make it less future-proof, but its raw memory bandwidth remains a strong asset. The Intel architecture, conversely, is designed for efficiency and modern feature sets, trading raw memory capacity for faster GDDR6 memory and a more compact design. The production status also differs: the Arc A530M is listed as active, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB is end-of-life, with its predecessor being Quadro Kepler and its successor being Quadro Pascal.