Intel Arc A550M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER Comparison

Intel Arc A550M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER occupy very different tiers of the GPU landscape, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive performance gap. In the two shared head-to-head tests, the NVIDIA card wins both, but the Intel part is not without interest as a low-power mobile option. The data shows a 77.6% deficit for the Arc A550M in Geekbench OpenCL and a 75.9% deficit in Geekbench Vulkan, making the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER roughly four times faster in raw compute workloads. However, the Arc A550M’s average benchmark score of 49737 sits 2.1% above the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s 48704, a quirk driven by the fact that the Intel chip has a broader set of comparable scores in its nearestRivals list, while the NVIDIA card’s own average is pulled down by its many Passmark tests. The percentile ranking is nearly identical—87th for Intel versus 86th for NVIDIA—suggesting that in the wider database, both cards sit at the upper end of all GPUs, though their absolute capabilities diverge sharply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two Geekbench tests are the only direct comparisons available, and they paint a one-sided picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 223091 against the Arc A550M’s 49894, a delta of -77.6% for the Intel part. That is not a marginal gap; it is a generational chasm. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: NVIDIA scores 206035, Intel scores 49580, a -75.9% difference. These are synthetic compute workloads that stress raw throughput, and the NVIDIA architecture simply overwhelms the Intel mobile chip. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s FP32 compute of 44.10 TFLOPS versus the Arc A550M’s 8.397 TFLOPS—a 5.25x advantage—explains the magnitude of the OpenCL result. Even the memory subsystem is lopsided: 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth on the NVIDIA card versus 224.0 GB/s on Intel, a 3x difference that shows up in any bandwidth-sensitive test.

Yet the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The Arc A550M’s avgBenchmarkScore of 49737 is actually higher than the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s 48704, which seems counterintuitive given the head-to-head results. This happens because the Intel chip has only two benchmark entries—both Geekbench tests—while NVIDIA has ten entries spanning Passmark DX9 through DX12, G2D, G3D, and compute. The Passmark scores for NVIDIA are low (e.g., 119 in DX12, 181 in DX10), dragging its average down. The Intel part’s nearestRivals list includes the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT at 49982 (-0.5% delta) and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 at 50826 (-2.1% delta), showing that the Arc A550M is competitive with desktop cards from the previous generation in these specific compute tests. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, by contrast, sits 0.7% above the NVIDIA CMP 50HX and 1.6% above the RTX A2000, indicating it is positioned among professional and mining-oriented cards in the database’s aggregate scoring.

When interpreting the head-to-head deltas, it is crucial to note that the -77.6% figure is a percentage difference from the winner’s score, not a measure of how much slower the loser is in absolute terms. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is 4.47x faster in OpenCL (223091 / 49894) and 4.16x faster in Vulkan (206035 / 49580). These are the numbers that matter for anyone comparing raw compute for rendering or machine learning tasks. The Intel card’s 16.79 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) is respectable for a 60 W part, but NVIDIA’s 44.10 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) is not just higher—it is sustained at full rate, not halved, which doubles the effective advantage in FP16 workloads. There is no scenario in the data where the Arc A550M wins a head-to-head test, and winsA equals 0 while winsB equals 2.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER than the Arc A550M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 223091 versus 49894, a delta of -77.6% for the Intel part, meaning NVIDIA is roughly 4.47x faster in this compute workload.

Q: Why does the Arc A550M have a higher average benchmark score than the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER despite losing both head-to-head tests?

A: The Arc A550M’s average of 49737 comes from only two Geekbench scores, both strong. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s average of 48704 is diluted by ten benchmarks, including low Passmark DX9-DX12 scores (119-360) and a G2D score of 1225, which bring its aggregate down despite its dominant compute results.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Arc A550M sits at the 87th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is at the 86th percentile—a negligible 1-point gap that reflects their similar standing in the overall database, not their relative performance to each other.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 672.3 GB/s from its 256-bit GDDR6X interface, while the Arc A550M has 224.0 GB/s from a 128-bit GDDR6 bus—a 3x advantage for NVIDIA that heavily influences memory-bound workloads.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the production status field. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER was released on 2024-01-07 and has a successor in the GeForce 50 series, while the Arc A550M has no listed release date or successor.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Arc A550M has a 60 W TDP, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a 285 W TDP—a 225 W difference that makes the Intel part far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops, though the NVIDIA card requires a 600 W suggested PSU and a 1x 16-pin connector.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel’s Arc A550M uses the DG2-512 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process with 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. NVIDIA’s RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses the AD103 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, also TSMC but on a 5 nm process, packing 45,900 million transistors into a smaller 379 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: Intel achieves 53.4M transistors per mm², while NVIDIA reaches 121.1M per mm²—more than double the density. This is not just a process advantage; it reflects NVIDIA’s more complex compute units, including 264 tensor cores and 66 RT cores, versus Intel’s 16 RT cores and no tensor cores listed. The Xe-HPG architecture is Intel’s first serious attempt at discrete GPUs, and the data shows it is efficient for its power envelope but not competitive at the high end.

The memory architecture differs as well. The Arc A550M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, yielding 672.3 GB/s. GDDR6X is a faster memory standard, and the larger bus doubles the potential bandwidth before clock speeds are considered. Intel’s chip has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while NVIDIA has 8448 shading units, 264 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RT and tensor core counts are particularly telling: NVIDIA’s 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI features like DLSS, while Intel’s 16 RT cores offer a more modest ray tracing capability, and the lack of tensor cores means no comparable AI acceleration. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is equal, but the underlying hardware is not.

The power delivery and physical design are also architecture-driven. Intel’s 60 W TDP and IGP slot width suggest it is designed for integrated or low-power mobile use, possibly soldered to a motherboard. NVIDIA’s 285 W TDP, triple-slot cooler, and 1x 16-pin power connector indicate a high-performance discrete card that needs serious cooling and a 600 W PSU. The dimensions reinforce this: the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is 310 mm long, 140 mm tall, and 61 mm wide, while the Arc A550M has no listed dimensions, consistent with a mobile chip that does not have a standard add-in-board form factor. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a) are fixed and multi-monitor capable, while Intel’s are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the outputs vary by laptop design.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows clear divergences across nearly every field. The process node differs: Intel uses 6 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Transistor count is 21,700 million versus 45,900 million, and die size is 406 mm² versus 379 mm². Clocks are starkly different: Intel has a 900 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, while NVIDIA has a 2340 MHz base and 2610 MHz boost. Memory speed is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for Intel versus 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA—note that NVIDIA’s lower clock but higher effective speed comes from the GDDR6X standard. Memory size is 8 GB versus 16 GB, bus width is 128-bit versus 256-bit, and bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s versus 672.3 GB/s. Shading units are 2048 versus 8448, TMUs are 128 versus 264, ROPs are 64 versus 96, RT cores are 16 versus 66, and tensor cores are null versus 264. Pixel rate is 131.2 GPixel/s versus 250.6 GPixel/s, texture rate is 262.4 GTexel/s versus 689.0 GTexel/s, FP32 is 8.397 TFLOPS versus 44.10 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 44.10 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 60 W versus 285 W, slot width is IGP versus triple-slot, power connectors are null versus 1x 16-pin, and suggested PSU is null versus 600 W. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a launch MSRP of 799 USD, which can be stated once as a reference point. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for both, and both are end-of-life, but NVIDIA has a release date of 2024-01-07, a predecessor (GeForce 30), and a successor (GeForce 50), while Intel has none listed.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER wins every direct comparison: both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, with massive margins. It is the clear choice for any workload that depends on raw compute, memory bandwidth, or high FP32 throughput. The 44.10 TFLOPS FP32 and 672.3 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for 4K gaming, 3D rendering, and compute-heavy tasks like video encoding or scientific simulation. The 16 GB memory capacity is double the Intel part’s, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The tensor cores and 66 RT cores suggest it would excel in ray-traced games and AI-accelerated applications, though the pack does not provide specific ray tracing benchmarks. The percentile ranking of 86th versus Intel’s 87th is essentially a tie, but that is an artifact of the different benchmark sets, not a reflection of real-world parity.

The Arc A550M wins in efficiency and portability. Its 60 W TDP is 225 W lower than the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s 285 W, making it viable for thin laptops without active cooling or with minimal cooling solutions. The IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs indicate it is meant for mobile integration, not desktop builds. Its average benchmark score of 49737 being 2.1% above the NVIDIA part is a statistical quirk, but it does show that the Intel chip is not embarrassing in synthetic compute tests relative to its power envelope. The nearestRivals data places it within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT and 1.4% above the NVIDIA CMP 50HX, suggesting that for its class, it is a competent performer. It would be the pick for a lightweight laptop where battery life and thermals