Intel Arc A580 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile Comparison

Intel Arc A580 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, and the benchmark data reflects that split. The Arc A580 is a desktop-focused Alchemist part with a 175 W TDP and a dual-slot cooler, while the RTX 4090 Mobile is an integrated laptop GPU with a 120 W TDP. In the recorded head-to-head tests, the NVIDIA part wins both, but the Arc A580 holds its own in the broader database rankings, sitting at the 87th percentile versus the RTX 4090 Mobile's 84th percentile. That discrepancy is the key to understanding these two products.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4090 Mobile dominates in raw compute throughput. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 180,831 against the Arc A580's 91,657, a 49.3% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin grows to 53.5%, with the NVIDIA part posting 170,774 versus 79,381. Those are decisive wins in compute-heavy workloads, and they align with the hardware: the RTX 4090 Mobile has 9,728 shading units, 304 tensor cores, and 76 RT cores, while the Arc A580 has 3,072 shading units and 24 RT cores. For tasks that scale with shader count and tensor throughput, the NVIDIA GPU is the clear choice.

The Arc A580's wins are more subtle. Its average benchmark score in the database is 57,756, which is higher than the RTX 4090 Mobile's 43,667. That average is pulled up by the Arc A580's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,229, a test the RTX 4090 Mobile does not have recorded. The Arc A580 also sits higher in the percentile ranking (87th versus 84th), meaning it outperforms a larger fraction of all GPUs in the database. For users who value a balanced desktop GPU with strong DirectX 12 performance and a lower TDP envelope, the Arc A580's profile is more attractive. The RTX 4090 Mobile, meanwhile, is a laptop part designed for maximum compute density in a constrained power budget, and it excels at that specific role.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures and processes. The Arc A580 uses Intel's Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC node, with the DG2-512 chip. It packs 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4 million per square millimeter. The RTX 4090 Mobile uses NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC node, with the AD103 chip. It has 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, for a density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. That density advantage is stark: the NVIDIA chip crams more than twice the transistors per area, which explains its higher compute throughput despite a smaller die.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The Arc A580 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4090 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, but with a higher effective speed of 18 Gbps, pushing bandwidth to 576.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA part also has a 64% memory capacity advantage, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Arc A580 runs at a 1700 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, while the RTX 4090 Mobile runs at 1335 MHz base and 1695 MHz boost. The Intel part operates at higher clocks, but the NVIDIA part compensates with far more execution units. In terms of raw throughput, the RTX 4090 Mobile delivers 32.98 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the Arc A580 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The NVIDIA GPU has nearly triple the FP32 throughput.

Feature sets are comparable on paper: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc A580 has a 2x 8-pin power connector and requires a 450 W power supply, while the RTX 4090 Mobile has no power connectors and is designed for portable devices. The Arc A580 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, whereas the RTX 4090 Mobile's display outputs are portable-device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests both go to the RTX 4090 Mobile. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA part scores 180,831 against the Arc A580's 91,657, a 49.3% delta. This is a compute benchmark that stresses raw shader and tensor throughput, and the RTX 4090 Mobile's 9,728 shading units and 304 tensor cores give it a massive edge. The Arc A580's 3,072 shading units simply cannot compete at this scale.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin widens. The RTX 4090 Mobile scores 170,774 versus 79,381, a 53.5% delta. Vulkan workloads often favor architectures with better driver optimization and higher occupancy, and Ada Lovelace appears to have an advantage here. The Arc A580's higher clock speeds (2000 MHz boost versus 1695 MHz) do not close the gap because the NVIDIA part has 3.2 times the shading units.

It is worth remembering the Arc A580 has a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,229, which is not available for the RTX 4090 Mobile in this dataset. That test, which is a DirectX 12 workload, likely contributes to the Arc A580's higher average benchmark score of 57,756. The RTX 4090 Mobile's average is dragged down by its Passmark scores, which include low numbers like 107 in DirectX 12 and 173 in DirectX 10. Those Passmark results are odd for a high-end GPU, but they are part of the recorded data and affect the overall average.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A580 has an average benchmark score of 57,756, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile's 43,667. The Arc A580 also ranks higher in the percentile standings, at 87th versus 84th.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4090 Mobile in OpenCL compute?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile scores 180,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 49.3% higher than the Arc A580's 91,657.

Q: Does the Arc A580 have any benchmark wins against the RTX 4090 Mobile?

A: In the recorded head-to-head tests, the Arc A580 has zero wins. The RTX 4090 Mobile wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan Geekbench tests.

Q: What are the memory capacity differences?

A: The Arc A580 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the RTX 4090 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the RTX 4090 Mobile has higher bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The Arc A580 has a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The RTX 4090 Mobile has a base clock of 1335 MHz and a boost clock of 1695 MHz.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile's AD103 chip has a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter, while the Arc A580's DG2-512 chip has a density of 53.4 million per square millimeter.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. For compute-heavy workloads, especially those that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile is the stronger part. Its 49.3% OpenCL advantage and 53.5% Vulkan advantage are decisive, and its 16 GB memory capacity and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The 32.98 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is nearly triple the Arc A580's 12.29 TFLOPS, which is a massive gap for any GPU compute task.

The Intel Arc A580, however, has its own case. Its average benchmark score of 57,756 is 32% higher than the RTX 4090 Mobile's average, and it ranks in the 87th percentile of all GPUs versus the NVIDIA part's 84th. The Arc A580 also has a higher boost clock (2000 MHz versus 1695 MHz) and a lower TDP is not a factor here since the RTX 4090 Mobile is more power-efficient at 120 W versus 175 W. But the Arc A580 is a desktop part with a dual-slot cooler and 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the RTX 4090 Mobile is an integrated laptop GPU.

Users should pick the RTX 4090 Mobile if they need maximum compute performance in a portable device. The benchmark results show it is the clear winner in OpenCL and Vulkan, and its 16 GB memory capacity is double the Arc A580's. Users should pick the Arc A580 if they want a desktop GPU with a higher average benchmark score and a DirectX 12 workload that the NVIDIA part does not have recorded. The Arc A580's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2,229 contributes to its stronger overall database standing, and its higher clock speeds suggest it can handle lighter workloads with less thermal overhead. The choice comes down to form factor and workload: compute density in a laptop versus balanced desktop performance with a higher benchmark average.