Intel Arc A570M vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

The NVIDIA P102-100 and Intel Arc A570M are two very different products that happen to land at nearly the same point in the GPU performance hierarchy. The data shows the Intel Arc A570M holds a clear aggregate lead, with an average benchmark score of 58239 compared to the NVIDIA P102-100’s 58528 in its own tests, though the head-to-head comparison tells a more specific story. The P102-100 is an end-of-life mining card from 2018, while the A570M is an active mobile part from 2023, and that generational gap shows up in architecture, features, and efficiency. This analysis breaks down where each GPU wins, what separates them internally, and which one makes sense for which workload—strictly from the benchmark and specification data available.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A570M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, and it wins by a substantial margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A570M scores 58239 against the P102-100’s 49602, a delta of 14.8% in Intel’s favor. That is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive performance gap in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

The NVIDIA P102-100, however, is not without its own strengths. It has a higher raw FP32 throughput at 10.77 TFLOPS versus the Arc A570M’s 5.325 TFLOPS, and it also leads in pixel rate (134.6 GPixel/s vs 83.20 GPixel/s) and texture rate (336.6 GTexel/s vs 166.4 GTexel/s). Those numbers suggest the P102-100 should win in scenarios that are heavily shader-bound or fill-rate limited, even if the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that. The P102-100 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 67454, a test the Arc A570M does not have a recorded result for, indicating a potential advantage in Vulkan workloads.

The Arc A570M counters with a higher memory capacity (8 GB vs 5 GB) and newer memory technology (GDDR6 vs GDDR5X), though the P102-100 has a wider memory bus (320-bit vs 128-bit) and nearly double the bandwidth (440.3 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s). For workloads that fit within 5 GB, the P102-100’s bandwidth advantage is significant. For workloads that need more than 5 GB, the Arc A570M is the only option between the two.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is stark. The NVIDIA P102-100 is built on the Pascal architecture, uses the GP102 chip, and is fabricated on a 16 nm TSMC process. It packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc A570M, in contrast, uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-256 chip, built on a much more modern 6 nm TSMC process. It has 11,500 million transistors in a 269 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 42.8 million per square millimeter—a 70% higher density that reflects the newer manufacturing node.

The core configurations differ substantially. The P102-100 has 3200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, with no dedicated ray tracing cores. The Arc A570M has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but it includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Arc A570M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P102-100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those API levels are a wash.

The FP16 capability highlights the architectural difference. The P102-100 delivers only 168.3 GFLOPS of FP16, a 1:64 ratio to its FP32, meaning it is essentially a FP32-only card. The Arc A570M delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP16, a 2:1 ratio to its FP32, making it much more capable for workloads that use reduced precision. The P102-100 also has a peculiar PCIe 1.0 x4 bus interface, which is a severe bottleneck for a card of its performance class, while the Arc A570M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is decisively in favor of the Intel Arc A570M. The Arc scores 58239, while the P102-100 scores 49602, giving Intel a 14.8% advantage. This is a significant gap, especially considering the P102-100’s much higher theoretical FP32 throughput. The result suggests that the Arc A570M’s architecture is far more efficient at translating its specs into real-world OpenCL compute performance.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the P102-100’s average score of 58528 is pulled up by its strong Geekbench Vulkan result of 67454. The Arc A570M has no recorded Vulkan score, so its average is solely based on its OpenCL result. This means the P102-100’s average is not directly comparable to the Arc A570M’s average, as they are not measured across the same set of tests. In the one test where they do overlap, the Arc A570M wins outright.

The nearest rival data reinforces the closeness of these two GPUs. The P102-100’s average of 58528 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58392) and 0.5% ahead of the Arc A570M (58239). The Arc A570M’s average of 58239 is 0.3% behind the RX 6950 XT and 0.5% behind the P102-100. In other words, these two cards are within a fraction of a percent of each other in aggregate, but the head-to-head test shows the Arc has a clear edge in OpenCL.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Arc A570M is the better choice for anyone running OpenCL-based compute workloads. It wins the head-to-head by 14.8%, has a more modern architecture with dedicated ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, and offers 8 GB of memory versus the P102-100’s 5 GB. It also consumes far less power at 75 W TDP versus 250 W, and it is an active product rather than end-of-life.

The NVIDIA P102-100, however, is not obsolete in every sense. Its raw throughput numbers are much higher—10.77 TFLOPS FP32, 134.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 440.3 GB/s bandwidth—which could translate to wins in specific workloads that are not captured by the OpenCL test, particularly Vulkan, where it scores 67454. But the P102-100’s PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a serious practical limitation, and its lack of display outputs makes it unsuitable for any end-user graphics application.

For a builder choosing between these two, the Arc A570M is the sensible pick for general compute and any modern workload. The P102-100 is a niche card that only makes sense if a specific application relies on its Vulkan performance or its massive memory bandwidth and fits within 5 GB. Otherwise, the Arc A570M’s combination of newer architecture, higher OpenCL performance, and lower power draw makes it the stronger recommendation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 has an average benchmark score of 58528, while the Intel Arc A570M has an average of 58239. The P102-100 is 0.5% ahead of the Arc A570M in this metric.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A570M in OpenCL?

A: The Arc A570M scores 58239 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the P102-100 scores 49602. That is a 14.8% advantage for the Intel card.

Q: Does the NVIDIA P102-100 support ray tracing?

A: No. The P102-100 has no ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc A570M has 16 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Intel Arc A570M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X. The P102-100 has a wider 320-bit bus and higher bandwidth at 440.3 GB/s, versus the Arc’s 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The Intel Arc A570M has a TDP of 75 W, while the NVIDIA P102-100 has a TDP of 250 W. The Arc consumes significantly less power.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the Intel Arc A570M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA P102-100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA P102-100 | Intel Arc A570M |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 11,500 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 269 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 42.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1582 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1683 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 440.3 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 3200 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 200 | 128 |

| ROPs | 80 | 64 |

| RT Cores | None | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 134.6 GPixel/s | 83.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 336.6 GTexel/s | 166.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.77 TFLOPS | 5.325 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) | 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 1.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

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

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

| Release Date | 2018-02-11 | 2023-07-31 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 49602 | 58239 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 67454 | N/A |