Intel Arc A550M vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent performance advantage for the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal across both benchmark workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696 points, while the Intel Arc A550M scores 49,894 points. This translates to a 33.7% lead for the NVIDIA part. The margin widens considerably in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the TITAN X Pascal reaches 77,499 points against 49,580 points for the Arc A550M, a 56.3% advantage. The database records 2 wins for the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal and 0 for the Intel Arc A550M, so the outcome of this head-to-head is unambiguous.

The OpenCL result is notable because it represents a compute-oriented workload. The TITAN X Pascal delivers 10.97 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 8.397 TFLOPS for the Arc A550M. That raw throughput difference of roughly 30% aligns closely with the 33.7% OpenCL delta. The Vulkan gap, however, is larger than the raw FP32 difference would suggest, which indicates that the TITAN X Pascal’s higher pixel rate (147.0 GPixel/s versus 131.2 GPixel/s) and its 96 ROPs versus 64 may play a role in graphics-heavy API tests. The TITAN X Pascal also has substantially more memory bandwidth at 480.4 GB/s compared to 224.0 GB/s, which can influence data-heavy workloads.

Looking at the broader database context, the TITAN X Pascal sits at the 91st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 72,098. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 (72,379, delta -0.4%), the AMD Radeon RX 6650M (71,768, delta +0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829, delta +1.8%). The Arc A550M, by contrast, ranks at the 86th percentile with an average score of 49,737. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (49,957, delta -0.4%), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (50,001, delta -0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT (50,951, delta -2.4%). The Arc A550M sits in a much lower performance tier, roughly 31% behind the TITAN X Pascal in average score.

The Vulkan test deserves extra attention because it often reflects real-world gaming and rendering API efficiency. The TITAN X Pascal’s 56.3% lead here is decisive. The database shows no benchmark where the Arc A550M comes out ahead, so any use case that depends on raw benchmark performance will favor the NVIDIA product.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded measurements, the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is the superior performer for anyone prioritizing compute or graphics throughput. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher percentile ranking (91 versus 86), and has an average benchmark score 22,361 points higher. The data indicates that the TITAN X Pascal is the choice for workloads where absolute performance matters, such as large OpenCL compute tasks or Vulkan-based applications. Its 12 GB memory and 384-bit bus further support memory-intensive operations.

The Intel Arc A550M, however, is not without a rationale. It consumes only 60 W, compared to 250 W for the TITAN X Pascal. That is a 190 W difference in thermal design power. The Arc A550M is an integrated graphics product (IGP slot width), meaning it can be deployed in compact, portable systems where the dual-slot, 267 mm long TITAN X Pascal cannot fit. The Arc A550M also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, whereas the TITAN X Pascal uses PCIe 3.0 x16. So while the TITAN X Pascal wins every benchmark, the Arc A550M wins on efficiency and form factor.

The verdict splits cleanly: pick the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal for maximum benchmark performance, especially in Vulkan and OpenCL. Pick the Intel Arc A550M for low-power, space-constrained builds where the 60 W draw and integrated design are more important than raw scores. There is no scenario in the data where the Arc A550M outperforms the TITAN X Pascal in speed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has an average benchmark score of 72,098, while the Intel Arc A550M averages 49,737.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan test?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 77,499 versus 49,580 for the Intel Arc A550M, a 56.3% difference.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has a TDP of 250 W, while the Intel Arc A550M has a TDP of 60 W.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A550M includes 16 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has no RT cores listed.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 480.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc A550M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal ranks at the 91st percentile among all GPUs, and the Intel Arc A550M ranks at the 86th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal uses a GP102 chip on a 16 nm process with 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. The Intel Arc A550M uses a DG2-512 chip on a 6 nm process with 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. Transistor density is 25.1M per mm² for the TITAN X Pascal and 53.4M per mm² for the Arc A550M.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The TITAN X Pascal has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz. The Arc A550M has a base clock of 900 MHz but a much higher boost clock of 2050 MHz. Memory clocks also vary: the TITAN X Pascal runs at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective data rate, while the Arc A550M runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and bandwidth diverge sharply. The TITAN X Pascal offers 12 GB GDDR5X with a 384-bit bus and 480.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A550M offers 8 GB GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units number 3584 for NVIDIA versus 2048 for Intel. Texture mapping units are 224 versus 128, and ROPs are 96 versus 64. The TITAN X Pascal has no RT cores, while the Arc A550M has 16.

Pixel rate is 147.0 GPixel/s for NVIDIA and 131.2 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 342.9 GTexel/s versus 262.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 10.97 TFLOPS versus 8.397 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is stark: the TITAN X Pascal delivers 171.5 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the Arc A550M delivers 16.79 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specs differ as well. TDP is 250 W for NVIDIA and 60 W for Intel. The TITAN X Pascal is dual-slot with a 267 mm length, 112 mm height, and 40 mm width, requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors and a suggested 600 W PSU. The Arc A550M is IGP with no listed dimensions, power connectors, or suggested PSU. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA and PCIe 4.0 x16 for Intel. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for NVIDIA, while Intel lists "Portable Device Dependent." The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is built on the Pascal architecture, released in the GeForce 10 generation. Its chip, GP102, uses a 16 nm TSMC process. The architecture is optimized for raw rasterization and compute, with a high count of shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. It has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The FP16 rate is severely limited at 171.5 GFLOPS, which indicates that the hardware is not designed for half-precision workloads. The memory subsystem is wide (384-bit) and uses GDDR5X, favoring bandwidth over density.

The Intel Arc A550M uses the Xe-HPG architecture from the Alchemist generation (Arc 5 Mobile). Its DG2-512 chip is fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process, which accounts for the higher transistor density. The architecture is more modern, featuring 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. It also delivers strong FP16 performance at 16.79 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can handle half-precision compute more efficiently. The memory bus is narrower (128-bit) with GDDR6, and the bandwidth is roughly half that of the TITAN X Pascal. The Arc A550M is designed for mobile integration, hence its IGP form factor and low power envelope.

The process node difference is substantial: 16 nm versus 6 nm. This explains how Intel packs 21,700 million transistors into a smaller die (406 mm²) than NVIDIA’s 471 mm². The transistor density more than doubles, from 25.1M to 53.4M per mm². However, the TITAN X Pascal’s older architecture still achieves higher absolute FP32 throughput and far higher memory bandwidth. The Arc A550M’s ray tracing support and FP16 capability are features the TITAN X Pascal lacks entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal wins in every recorded benchmark category. For compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, its 33.7% lead and higher FP32 throughput make it the clear choice. For Vulkan-based graphics workloads, its 56.3% advantage is even more pronounced, likely due to its superior pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. The TITAN X Pascal also wins on memory capacity (12 GB versus 8 GB) and bus width (384-bit versus 128-bit), which matter for large datasets and high-resolution textures. Its 96 ROPs help with fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The Intel Arc A550M wins on efficiency and integration. Its 60 W TDP versus 250 W means it generates far less heat and can run in systems without dedicated power connectors. Its IGP form factor allows deployment in laptops or compact devices where the dual-slot, 267 mm TITAN X Pascal cannot physically fit. The Arc A550M also has ray tracing cores, which the TITAN X Pascal lacks, so any future workload that relies on hardware-accelerated ray tracing will favor Intel. Its FP16 performance at 16.79 TFLOPS is vastly superior to the TITAN X Pascal’s 171.5 GFLOPS, making it better suited for half-precision AI or compute tasks. Finally, PCIe 4.0 support offers double the bus bandwidth versus PCIe 3.0 for data transfer to the host system.

In summary, the TITAN X Pascal is the performance king in the database. The Arc A550M is not a competitor on raw speed, but it wins for users who need a low-power, portable, ray-tracing-capable GPU.