Intel Arc A550M vs Intel Arc A580 Comparison

The Intel Arc A580 and Intel Arc A550M share the same DG2-512 silicon and Xe-HPG architecture, but they are configured for very different roles. The A580 is a desktop graphics card, while the A550M is a mobile IGP. Benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy between them, but the magnitude of the gap varies significantly depending on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data contains only two comparable tests, and the Intel Arc A580 wins both of them decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A580 scores 91,657 points against the A550M’s 49,894 points. That is a delta of 83.7% — the desktop card delivers nearly double the raw compute performance of the mobile part in this API. The margin is substantial and reflects the fundamental differences in chip configuration and power envelope.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the A580 again takes the lead, scoring 79,381 points versus the A550M’s 49,580 points. The delta here is 60.1%, which is still a commanding advantage but notably smaller than the OpenCL gap. This suggests that the A550M’s architecture scales relatively better under Vulkan’s lower-level API, or that the A580’s additional hardware resources are not fully utilized in this particular workload. Either way, the A580 remains firmly ahead.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the A580’s average benchmark score is 57,756, while the A550M’s average is 49,737. That puts the A580 roughly 16% higher on average across all recorded tests, which is a smaller gap than the head-to-head deltas might suggest. The reason is that the average includes tests where the A550M is not as far behind, such as the Vulkan result, and potentially other workloads not listed in the head-to-head set.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The A580 sits at the 87th percentile of all GPUs, while the A550M is at the 86th percentile. Despite the large score differences in individual tests, both cards are clustered closely in the overall performance distribution. This means that while the A580 is faster, the A550M is not a weak performer in absolute terms — it still ranks above the majority of graphics hardware.

Rival comparisons reinforce this positioning. The A580’s nearest rival is the Intel Arc A570M, which has an average score of 58,239 and a delta of -0.8% relative to the A580. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM is nearly identical at 58,085 (-0.6%). On the A550M side, the closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti at 49,957 (-0.4%), followed by the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 at 50,001 (-0.5%). The A550M is also within 2.6% of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, though that comparison favors the AMD card.

Architecture Differences

Both the Intel Arc A580 and Intel Arc A550M are built on the same DG2-512 die, manufactured on TSMC’s 6 nm process. They share identical transistor counts (21,700 million) and die size (406 mm²), with the same transistor density of 53.4M per mm². The architecture is Xe-HPG for both, and they belong to the Alchemist generation — the A580 is part of the Arc 5 desktop lineup, while the A550M is part of the Arc 5 Mobile lineup.

The most significant architectural difference lies in the execution resources. The A580 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The A550M is cut down substantially, with 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is a 33% reduction in shading units and a 33% reduction in both TMUs and ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: the A580 has 24 RT cores, while the A550M has 16.

Clock speeds also diverge. The A580 has a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The A550M has a much lower base clock of 900 MHz but a slightly higher boost clock of 2050 MHz. This means the A550M can reach a higher peak frequency, but it spends more time at lower clocks under sustained load, likely due to thermal and power constraints in a mobile form factor.

The memory subsystem is another major differentiator. Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, but the A580 uses a 256-bit bus with a memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. The A550M uses a 128-bit bus with a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), resulting in 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A580 thus has more than double the memory bandwidth, which is critical for high-resolution textures and compute workloads.

Compute rates follow directly from the shading unit and clock differences. The A580 achieves 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 24.58 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio). The A550M delivers 8.397 TFLOPS FP32 and 16.79 TFLOPS FP16. Pixel and texture rates show a similar pattern: the A580 has 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s, while the A550M has 131.2 GPixel/s and 262.4 GTexel/s.

Power consumption is where the two diverge most dramatically. The A580 has a TDP of 175 W and requires a dual-slot cooler with two 8-pin power connectors, along with a suggested 450 W power supply. The A550M is rated at just 60 W TDP and is designed as an IGP with no dedicated power connectors or PSU recommendation. This is a 115 W difference, which explains the substantial performance gap despite the same underlying silicon.

Both cards support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They also use the same PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface. The A580 offers display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the A550M’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” reflecting its mobile integration.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A580 wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, but the margin varies. Its biggest advantage is in Geekbench OpenCL, where it leads by 83.7%. This indicates that the A580’s higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth provide a strong benefit in compute-oriented tasks that scale well with parallel resources. The 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s is likely a major factor here, as OpenCL workloads often stress memory throughput.

In Vulkan, the A580’s lead shrinks to 60.1%. This suggests that the A550M’s higher boost clock of 2050 MHz — slightly above the A580’s 2000 MHz — helps close the gap in graphics-heavy workloads that rely more on clock speed than raw resource counts. Still, the A580’s 3,072 shading units versus 2,048 give it a decisive edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The A550M’s wins are not in performance but in efficiency and form factor. Its 60 W TDP is less than half of the A580’s 175 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power draw and heat dissipation are primary constraints. The IGP slot width means it integrates directly into a motherboard or mobile platform, eliminating the need for a separate expansion slot or power cabling.

For desktop users building a dedicated gaming or workstation system, the A580 is the clear choice. Its average benchmark score of 57,756 places it in the 87th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM and Intel Arc A570M, both of which it edges out by less than 1%. The A550M, at the 86th percentile, is only one percentile lower but sits in a different performance class, competing with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and AMD Radeon RX Vega 64.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A580 than the Intel Arc A550M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The A580 scores 91,657 versus 49,894 for the A550M, a delta of 83.7%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The A580 has 512.0 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, while the A550M has 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has more ray tracing cores?

A: The A580 has 24 RT cores, while the A550M has 16 RT cores.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The A580 has a 175 W TDP, and the A550M has a 60 W TDP.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The A580 averages 57,756, and the A550M averages 49,737.

The Verdict

The data makes the hierarchy unambiguous: the Intel Arc A580 is the stronger performer in every directly comparable test. It leads by 83.7% in OpenCL and 60.1% in Vulkan, with a 16% higher average benchmark score overall. The A580’s advantage comes from having 50% more shading units, 50% more TMUs and ROPs, 50% more RT cores, and more than double the memory bandwidth. Its higher base clock (1700 MHz vs 900 MHz) and higher TDP (175 W vs 60 W) further cement its position.

However, the A550M is not without merit. Its 86th percentile ranking shows it is a competent performer for a mobile IGP, and its 2050 MHz boost clock is actually higher than the A580’s 2000 MHz boost. The 60 W TDP makes it viable for portable systems where the A580’s 175 W requirement would be impractical. The A550M’s nearest rivals include high-end desktop cards like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, which indicates it punches well above its power class.

The choice comes down to the use case. For a desktop build where space, cooling, and power supply capacity are not limiting factors, the A580 is the obvious pick. It delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, placing it in the 87th percentile of all GPUs. For a laptop or compact integrated system, the A550M offers the same architecture and API support with a 60 W power envelope, sacrificing raw performance for mobility. There is no scenario where the A550M outperforms the A580 in the recorded benchmarks, so the decision is purely about platform constraints versus performance needs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A580 | Intel Arc A550M |

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

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 5) | Alchemist (Arc 5 Mobile) |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 21,700 million | 21,700 million |

| Die Size | 406 mm² | 406 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1700 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 192 | 128 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 192.0 GPixel/s | 131.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 384.0 GTexel/s | 262.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 12.29 TFLOPS | 8.397 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) | 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 175 W | 60 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Average Benchmark Score | 57,756 | 49,737 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 87 | 86 |