Intel Arc A570M vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single direct head-to-head comparison between the Intel Arc A570M and the NVIDIA RTX A2000, using the Geekbench OpenCL workload. In this test, the RTX A2000 scores 67,695 points, while the Arc A570M records 58,239 points. The delta of 14% places the NVIDIA part clearly ahead in this compute-oriented benchmark. This is not a marginal gap; it represents a meaningful performance advantage in raw OpenCL throughput.

Context from the database's nearest-rival data reinforces the scale of this difference. The Arc A570M sits at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 58,239. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 (a 0.3% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085 (0.3% ahead of the Arc), the NVIDIA P102-100 at 58,528 (0.5% behind the Arc), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (0.7% behind the Arc). These deltas are all within roughly one percent, indicating that the Arc A570M's OpenCL result places it in a tightly clustered performance band. The RTX A2000, by contrast, sits at the 85th percentile, yet its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 46,043, which is lower than its OpenCL result because the average includes additional workloads such as 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1,345 points) and Geekbench Vulkan (69,089 points).

The RTX A2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972 (0.2% behind the A2000), the Intel Arc A730M at 45,592 (1% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46,601 (1.2% ahead of the A2000), and the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614 (1.2% ahead). This clustering shows that the A2000's average performance is competitive with a range of workstation and mobile parts, but its OpenCL score is its strongest recorded result, well above its average. The single head-to-head metric therefore tells a clear story: in OpenCL, the RTX A2000 outperforms the Arc A570M by 14%, and the surrounding rival data confirms that both cards occupy distinct performance tiers.

There are no recorded head-to-head wins for the Intel part in the database. The Arc A570M's only benchmark entry is the same Geekbench OpenCL result, and it loses that comparison. Meanwhile, the RTX A2000 holds one win in the head-to-head table. This asymmetry matters for interpretation: the database shows a single dominant data point rather than a broad multi-test sweep, so conclusions about overall performance must be drawn cautiously from the OpenCL result alone.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, foundries, and design philosophies. The Intel Arc A570M uses the DG2-256 chip, built on the Xe-HPG architecture, and belongs to the Alchemist generation under the Arc 5 Mobile lineup. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 11,500 million transistors packed into a 269 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 42.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip, based on the Ampere architecture, from the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. It is fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung, with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, giving a density of 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The process node difference is substantial: the Intel part uses a smaller 6 nm node versus the 8 nm node of the NVIDIA part, though the NVIDIA chip packs slightly more transistors and a slightly larger die.

Core configurations diverge significantly. The Arc A570M has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 raster output units, and 16 ray tracing cores. The RTX A2000 has 3,328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, 48 raster output units, 26 ray tracing cores, and 104 tensor cores. The Arc A570M has no tensor cores listed in the database. This means the NVIDIA part offers a much higher shading unit count and far more ray tracing cores, while the Intel part counters with more TMUs and ROPs. The presence of tensor cores on the A2000 is a notable architectural feature absent from the Intel mobile GPU.

Clock behavior also differs. The Arc A570M runs at a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz. The RTX A2000 runs at a much lower base clock of 562 MHz, with a boost clock of 1200 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the A2000's higher shading unit count allows it to achieve higher theoretical throughput figures in certain metrics. The Intel part records 5.325 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 10.65 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part records 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 and 7.987 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The A2000 thus delivers significantly higher FP32 throughput and maintains the same FP16 rate, whereas the Intel part halves its FP16 rate relative to FP32. Pixel and texture rates follow the core configuration: the Arc A570M reaches 83.20 GPixel/s and 166.4 GTexel/s, while the RTX A2000 reaches 57.60 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s. The Intel part leads in those fill-rate-oriented metrics despite its lower overall compute throughput.

Memory subsystems also differ in structure. The Arc A570M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1750 MHz and 14 Gbps effective speed, producing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1500 MHz and 12 Gbps effective speed, producing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has less capacity but a wider bus and higher bandwidth. The Arc part has a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Power and physical characteristics also separate the two: the Arc A570M is rated at 75 W TDP with an IGP slot width and no listed power connectors, while the RTX A2000 is rated at 70 W TDP, is dual-slot, has no power connectors, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The A2000's dimensions are 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height. Display outputs are portable-device dependent on the Arc, while the A2000 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The available data points to a clear but narrow picture. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 14%. This makes it the stronger choice for workloads that rely on OpenCL compute throughput, such as general-purpose GPU computing tasks that do not specifically use DirectX, Vulkan, or proprietary CUDA-optimized paths. The A2000's higher FP32 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS versus 5.325 TFLOPS for the Arc A570M supports this interpretation: in raw single-precision compute, the NVIDIA part has a theoretical advantage of roughly 50%. Its tensor cores add a hardware capability for AI and machine learning inference workloads that the Arc A570M lacks entirely.

The Intel Arc A570M, despite losing the OpenCL comparison, holds advantages in specific architectural areas. Its fill rate is superior: 83.20 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s for pixel throughput, and 166.4 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s for texture throughput. This suggests that pixel-heavy and texture-heavy rendering stages could favor the Intel part, particularly in scenarios where the workload saturates ROPs or TMUs rather than shader ALUs. The Arc also has more memory capacity at 8 GB versus 6 GB, which can benefit workloads with large working sets that approach the 6 GB limit of the A2000. Its higher boost clock of 1300 MHz versus 1200 MHz also helps in clock-sensitive workloads. The Arc A570M's smaller 6 nm process node implies a more modern manufacturing approach, and its 16 ray tracing cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing support, though the A2000 offers more of them at 26.

For use-case segmentation, the RTX A2000 appears better suited to compute-heavy professional workloads, especially those leveraging OpenCL, FP32 throughput, or tensor-core-accelerated operations. The Arc A570M, with its higher fill rates and larger memory pool, could be a better fit for rendering-oriented tasks that stress texture and pixel output. The A2000's 192-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth also give it a memory bandwidth advantage, which matters for bandwidth-bound compute kernels. The Arc's 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are lower, but its 8 GB capacity may avoid out-of-memory failures in memory-hungry applications. The A2000 is an end-of-life product with a known successor (Workstation Ada), while the Arc A570M is still active in production, which may matter for long-term availability considerations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 67,695 against 58,239 for the Intel Arc A570M, a 14% difference.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A570M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Arc A570M sits at the 88th percentile, with an average score of 58,239. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 (0.3% behind the Arc), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085 (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA P102-100 at 58,528 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (0.7% behind).

Q: Does the RTX A2000 have any architectural advantages over the Arc A570M?

A: Yes. The RTX A2000 has 3,328 shading units versus 2,048, 26 ray tracing cores versus 16, and 104 tensor cores, which the Arc lacks. It also delivers 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 5.325 TFLOPS, and 288.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s.

Q: What advantages does the Intel Arc A570M hold?

A: The Arc A570M has higher pixel and texture rates at 83.20 GPixel/s and 166.4 GTexel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s for the RTX A2000. It also has 8 GB of memory versus 6 GB, and a smaller 6 nm process node versus 8 nm.

Q: What is the RTX A2000's average benchmark score and percentile?

A: The RTX A2000 has an average benchmark score of 46,043 across all recorded tests and sits at the 85th percentile among all GPUs. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 67,695 is its highest recorded result, while its Geekbench Vulkan score is 69,089 and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1,345.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A570M is listed as active in production, with a release date of 2023-07-31. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 is listed as end-of-life, with a release date of 2021-08-09, a predecessor of Quadro Turing, and a successor of Workstation Ada.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A570M | NVIDIA RTX A2000 |

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

| Chip | DG2-256 | GA106 |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ampere |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 5 Mobile) | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) |

| Process node | 6 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 11,500 million | 12,000 million |

| Die size | 269 mm² | 276 mm² |

| Transistor density | 42.8M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 900 MHz | 562 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1300 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2048 | 3328 |

| TMUs | 128 | 104 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| Ray tracing cores | 16 | 26 |

| Tensor cores | Not listed | 104 |

| Pixel rate | 83.20 GPixel/s | 57.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 166.4 GTexel/s | 124.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 5.325 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1) | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 70 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 167 mm length, 69 mm height |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2023-07-31 | 2021-08-09 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 449 USD |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Not listed | Workstation Ada |