Intel Arc A570M vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmarks split cleanly between the two cards. The Intel Arc A570M wins the only head-to-head test in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL workload, with a score of 58,239 against the NVIDIA Quadro M6000's 39,688. That is a 46.7% advantage for the Intel part. The Quadro M6000 has no benchmark victories in the comparison, but it does have one additional recorded test that the Arc A570M lacks: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 46,913. That Vulkan result does not count as a head-to-head win since the Intel card has no corresponding Vulkan entry, but it does show the Quadro can still produce competitive compute numbers in a different API environment.

Use-case separation follows from the data. The Arc A570M is the compute-oriented option, sitting at the 88th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 58,239. The Quadro M6000 sits at the 84th percentile with an average score of 43,301. The Arc's OpenCL dominance suggests workloads that rely on that API, such as general-purpose GPU compute tasks, will favor it heavily. The Quadro's Vulkan result indicates it retains capability in graphics-oriented Vulkan applications, but the lack of a comparable Vulkan score for the Arc means the database cannot confirm which card is faster in that specific API.

The Arc A570M is an active production part, while the Quadro M6000 is end-of-life. That status difference matters for system builders: one is currently available in the market, the other is a legacy product. The Arc targets mobile integration with an IGP slot width, while the Quadro is a dual-slot desktop card requiring an 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. These physical and power differences dictate which systems can accept each card, regardless of raw benchmark performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The Intel Arc A570M scores 58,239, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 scores 39,688. The Arc leads by 46.7% in this specific test.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 have any benchmark where it beats the Arc A570M?

A: No. In the only shared benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro falls behind. The Quadro does have a separate Geekbench Vulkan score of 46,913, but the Arc has no Vulkan entry in the database, so no direct comparison exists.

Q: How do these cards rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The Arc A570M ranks at the 88th percentile, while the Quadro M6000 ranks at the 84th percentile. The Arc's average benchmark score is 58,239, and the Quadro's is 43,301.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: For the Arc A570M, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT with an average score of 58,392 (0.3% higher), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085 (0.3% lower). For the Quadro M6000, the closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 43,268 (0.1% higher), followed by the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB at 43,262 (0.1% higher).

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Arc A570M has 8 GB of GDDR6. The Quadro also has a wider 384-bit memory bus and higher bandwidth at 317.4 GB/s, compared to the Arc's 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The Arc A570M is listed as active, meaning it is still in production. The Quadro M6000 is end-of-life, with its release date recorded as March 2015 and its successor listed as Quadro Pascal.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one direct benchmark comparison between these two cards, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A570M produces a score of 58,239, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 produces 39,688. The delta is 46.7% in favor of the Arc, a substantial margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their similar percentile rankings.

To contextualize that gap, look at the nearest rivals for each card. The Arc A570M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT with an average score of 58,392, a difference of only 0.3%. The Arc's OpenCL score of 58,239 is nearly identical to that high-end desktop part, which means the Arc is performing at the upper edge of its peer group. On the other side, the Quadro M6000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 43,268, just 0.1% above the Quadro's own average of 43,301. The Quadro's OpenCL score of 39,688 is notably below its own average, suggesting that particular test underperforms relative to its overall standing.

The Arc's 46.7% lead over the Quadro in OpenCL is a massive delta, far exceeding the small percentage differences seen within each card's nearest rival group. That magnitude indicates a generational and architectural performance gap, not a minor tuning difference. The Quadro's Vulkan score of 46,913 is higher than its OpenCL score, but it still falls short of the Arc's OpenCL result by 24.1%. Without a Vulkan score for the Arc, the database cannot determine whether the Arc would maintain its lead in that API, but the available evidence strongly favors the Intel part in compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The Arc A570M uses a DG2-256 chip built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 42.8 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M6000 uses a GM200 chip on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 8,000 million transistors on a much larger 601 mm² die, giving a density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The Arc's smaller, denser process gives it a clear manufacturing advantage.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Arc has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz. The Quadro has a base clock of 988 MHz and a boost clock of 1114 MHz. The Quadro starts higher but boosts lower, while the Arc has a wider boost range. Memory clocks also differ: the Arc runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, while the Quadro runs at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective.

The memory subsystem is a major point of divergence. The Arc has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s. The Quadro has 50% more capacity and 41.7% more bandwidth, but the Arc uses newer memory technology.

Compute unit counts also differ. The Arc has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations units. The Quadro has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Quadro has 50% more shading units, 50% more TMUs, and 50% more ROPs. The Arc has 16 ray tracing cores, while the Quadro has none. Pixel and texture rates follow: the Arc delivers 83.20 GPixel/s and 166.4 GTexel/s, while the Quadro delivers 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute favors the Quadro at 6.844 TFLOPS versus the Arc's 5.325 TFLOPS. The Arc has FP16 capability at 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 performance. Power draw is dramatically different: the Arc is rated at 75 W TDP, the Quadro at 250 W. The Quadro requires a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU, while the Arc uses an IGP slot width and lists no power connectors.

The bus interface differs: the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the Arc is listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the Quadro has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro's physical dimensions are recorded as 267 mm long and 111 mm tall.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Intel Arc A570M is based on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the Alchemist generation for Arc 5 Mobile, using the DG2-256 chip. It is built on a 6 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM200 chip, built on a 28 nm TSMC process. These are separated by several GPU generations, with the Quadro's release date recorded as March 2015 and the Arc's release date as July 2023.

The Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc has 16 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro's Maxwell design. The Arc also has FP16 support with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability. The Quadro's predecessor is listed as Quadro Kepler, and its successor is Quadro Pascal, placing it firmly in the Maxwell-era lineup.

The transistor and die data illustrate the architectural evolution. The Arc packs 11,500 million transistors into 269 mm², while the Quadro fits 8,000 million into 601 mm². The Arc's transistor density of 42.8M per mm² is more than three times the Quadro's 13.3M per mm². That density difference reflects not only process node improvements but also architectural changes, including the addition of ray tracing hardware and a more modern compute pipeline.

The memory architecture also reflects different design philosophies. The Arc uses GDDR6 with a narrow 128-bit bus, relying on high clock speeds to achieve 224.0 GB/s. The Quadro uses GDDR5 with a wide 384-bit bus, achieving 317.4 GB/s through bus width rather than clock speed. The Quadro's approach was typical of its era, while the Arc's approach prioritizes power efficiency, which is consistent with its 75 W TDP versus the Quadro's 250 W TDP.

The Verdict

The data points to different users for each card. The Intel Arc A570M is the compute winner, with a 46.7% lead in OpenCL and a higher percentile ranking at 88 versus 84. It is also the only one of the two that is still in active production, making it the relevant choice for new systems. Its 75 W TDP and IGP slot width make it suitable for mobile or power-constrained configurations, though its 8 GB memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth may limit memory-heavy workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000, despite being end-of-life, retains advantages in specific areas. Its 12 GB memory capacity and 317.4 GB/s bandwidth are superior, and its FP32 compute of 6.844 TFLOPS exceeds the Arc's 5.325 TFLOPS. The Quadro also has higher pixel and texture rates. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound or FP32-heavy and do not require ray tracing or FP16, the Quadro's raw specifications could still be competitive. Its Vulkan score of 46,913, while lower than the Arc's OpenCL score, shows it can perform in modern graphics APIs.

The verdict is straightforward. Choose the Intel Arc A570M for OpenCL compute workloads, ray tracing support, modern DirectX 12 Ultimate features, and power efficiency. Choose the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 if memory capacity, memory bandwidth, or raw FP32 throughput are the primary requirements, and if the system can accommodate a 250 W dual-slot card with a 600 W PSU. The Quadro is a legacy part, but its specification sheet still holds up in memory-heavy scenarios. The Arc is the current-generation option with the benchmark lead, but the Quadro is not without merit for specific use cases.