Intel Arc A550M vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

The Intel Arc A550M and NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB occupy different ends of the hardware spectrum, yet benchmark data shows a clear overall winner. The Intel Arc A550M outperforms the Quadro M6000 in both available compute tests, securing a 2-0 win count in head-to-head comparisons. The Arc A550M delivers a significant 24.4% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a more modest but still decisive 6.8% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. These results position the Intel part at the 86th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 83rd percentile, confirming the performance gap is consistent across the broader database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dominant victory for the Intel Arc A550M comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it scores 49,894 against the Quadro M6000’s 40,098. That is a delta of 24.4%, a substantial margin that reflects not just raw compute capability but also architectural efficiency. The Quadro M6000, despite having more shading units (3,072 vs. 2,048) and a wider 384-bit memory bus, cannot overcome the Arc A550M’s higher clock speeds and modern design. In Vulkan, the gap narrows considerably: the Arc scores 49,580 versus 46,425, a 6.8% advantage. This suggests that while the Intel architecture scales well across APIs, the NVIDIA part remains competitive in graphics-oriented workloads, likely due to its mature driver stack and higher texture/pixel throughput relative to its age.

Comparing the Arc A550M to its nearest rivals contextualizes its performance. With an average benchmark score of 49,737, it sits just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT by 2.4% but leads the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT by 2.6%. This places the Arc A550M squarely in the upper-midrange tier of modern GPUs, punching well above its mobile-oriented positioning. For the Quadro M6000, its average score of 43,262 puts it virtually tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 (non-24GB variant, -0.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (0.1%). It also comes within 0.9% of the RTX 4090 Mobile, indicating that while the Quadro is old, it still holds its own against contemporary mobile parts.

The data shows no benchmark where the Quadro M6000 wins outright. Every tested workload favors the Intel Arc A550M, with the OpenCL gap being particularly punishing. The Vulkan result, while closer, still demonstrates that the Arc A550M’s Xe-HPG architecture delivers superior API-level performance. Notably, the Quadro’s only real strength appears to be consistency—its Vulkan score of 46,425 is only 13.6% lower than its OpenCL score, whereas the Arc A550M’s Vulkan score is 0.6% lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting the Intel part scales more efficiently across compute paradigms.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A550M wins in every measurable benchmark category, but the nature of its victories points to specific use cases. In OpenCL, the 24.4% lead indicates a clear advantage in general-purpose compute tasks, such as physics simulations, data processing, and rendering workloads that leverage GPGPU acceleration. The Arc A550M’s 8.397 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 16.79 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1) throughput are direct contributors here, allowing it to process parallel workloads faster than the Quadro’s 6.844 TFLOPS FP32. For users running OpenCL-based applications, the Intel part is the unequivocal choice.

The Vulkan win, though smaller at 6.8%, still favors the Arc A550M for modern graphics APIs. Vulkan is increasingly common in gaming and real-time 3D applications, and the Arc’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 ensures forward compatibility with newer titles. The Quadro M6000, limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, lacks the hardware ray tracing cores (the Arc has 16 RT cores) and relies on older Maxwell 2.0 architecture. However, the Quadro’s strength lies in memory capacity: its 24 GB of GDDR5 VRAM dwarfs the Arc’s 8 GB, making it suitable for large dataset visualizations or multi-display professional environments where memory footprint outweighs raw compute speed. The Quadro also has a higher memory bandwidth (317.4 GB/s vs. 224.0 GB/s) and more ROPs (96 vs. 64), which could benefit certain pixel-heavy workloads despite the overall score deficit.

For professional workflows, the Quadro M6000’s 24 GB capacity and 384-bit bus provide a niche edge. Applications that require loading massive textures or models into VRAM, such as high-resolution medical imaging or architectural previsualization, would see fewer memory-related stalls on the Quadro. Yet, benchmark results indicate that any compute advantage is nullified by the Arc’s faster execution. The Arc A550M is the better all-rounder; the Quadro only wins in scenarios where VRAM capacity is the sole bottleneck.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational and profound. The Intel Arc A550M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-512 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. This process node allows for 21,700 million transistors packed into a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM200 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It houses only 8,000 million transistors on a larger 601 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 13.3 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip is nearly three times as dense, enabling more features per unit area.

Core configurations differ significantly. The Arc A550M has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Quadro M6000 counters with 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs but has no RT cores or tensor cores. Despite having fewer shading units, the Arc boosts to 2050 MHz versus the Quadro’s 1114 MHz, which is why the Intel part achieves higher pixel and texture rates (131.2 GPixel/s and 262.4 GTexel/s vs. 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s). The Arc also supports FP16 at 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature entirely absent from the Quadro, which lists no FP16 capability.

Memory subsystems are also divergent. The Arc uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro uses 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s. The Quadro’s memory is slower per pin (6.6 Gbps effective vs. 14 Gbps effective) but wider, leading to higher aggregate bandwidth. Power consumption reflects the efficiency gains of newer manufacturing: the Arc draws 60 W TDP and is an IGP design with no power connectors, while the Quadro is a dual-slot card requiring a 250 W TDP and a 1x 8-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Arc also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the Arc is “Portable Device Dependent,” whereas the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data, the Intel Arc A550M is the superior GPU in raw performance. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (49,737 vs. 43,262), and ranks higher in the percentile distribution (86th vs. 83rd). Anyone prioritizing compute performance, modern API support, or energy efficiency should choose the Arc A550M. Its 24.4% OpenCL lead is decisive, and its 6.8% Vulkan edge ensures it handles contemporary graphics workloads better. The 60 W TDP, compared to the Quadro’s 250 W, also makes it far more suitable for compact or mobile systems, though its IGP form factor limits standalone installation.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB is the choice only when VRAM capacity is paramount. Its 24 GB of GDDR5 memory is triple that of the Arc, and its higher bandwidth (317.4 GB/s) supports memory-intensive professional applications. It also offers a fixed set of display outputs (1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2), which may be preferable for multi-monitor setups over the Arc’s portable-device-dependent outputs. However, the Quadro loses on every benchmark, and its 28 nm process means higher power draw and lower clock speeds. For most users, the Arc A550M’s wins are too broad to ignore.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has an average benchmark score of 49,737, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 43,262.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A550M scores 49,894, which is 24.4% higher than the Quadro M6000’s 40,098.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 win any direct comparison?

A: No. The data shows the Intel Arc A550M wins both head-to-head benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan), with zero wins for the Quadro.

Q: How much VRAM does each GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has 8 GB of GDDR6, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has a TDP of 60 W, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB has a TDP of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: Only the Intel Arc A550M has ray tracing cores (16 RT cores); the Quadro M6000 has no RT cores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A550M | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB |

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

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 21,700 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 406 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 53.4M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | 988 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2050 MHz | 1114 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 2048 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 128 | 192 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 16 | 0 |

| Pixel Rate | 131.2 GPixel/s | 106.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 262.4 GTexel/s | 213.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 8.397 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 60 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | None | 600 W |

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

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Release Date | Not specified | 2016-03-04 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 4,999 USD |