Intel Arc A580 vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database includes two common cross-platform tests for these GPUs, and the results split cleanly between the two contenders. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile posts a score of 105307, while the Intel Arc A580 trails at 91657. That gives NVIDIA a decisive 14.9% advantage in this compute-oriented workload. The margin is substantial, not a marginal edge, and it aligns with the raw FP32 throughput figures recorded for each chip.

The Vulkan test flips the outcome. The Intel Arc A580 scores 79381, edging out the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile's 76960. That is a 3% lead for Intel, a narrower margin than NVIDIA's OpenCL win but still a clear reversal. The data shows each GPU claims exactly one head-to-head victory, so the overall benchmark record is a 1:1 tie. However, the magnitudes matter: NVIDIA's win is nearly five times larger in percentage terms than Intel's, which suggests the A4500 Mobile has a wider performance cushion in its preferred workload.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile averages 91134, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc A580 averages 57756, landing in the 87th percentile. The gap between them is large, roughly 58% higher average score for the NVIDIA part, even though the head-to-head Vulkan test favors Intel. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix: the A4500 Mobile has only two recorded tests in the database, while the Arc A580 has three, and the extra test (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12) appears to drag down its average considerably.

Nearest rival data reinforces the picture. The RTX A4500 Mobile sits within 0.6% of the desktop RTX A4500, within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60, and ahead of the Quadro GP100 by 4.2% and the Radeon PRO W7600 by 4.6%. The Arc A580, meanwhile, trades places within about 1 point of the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE, RX 9070 GRE, RX 5600 OEM, and Intel Arc A570M. None of these deltas exceed 1.1%. The A4500 Mobile's rival cluster sits at a higher absolute performance tier, which is consistent with its higher percentile ranking.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design schools. NVIDIA's RTX A4500 Mobile uses the GA104 chip built on the Ampere architecture, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process. It packs 17,400 million transistors into a 392 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. Intel's Arc A580 uses the DG2-512 chip under the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm node. That die is slightly larger at 406 mm² but holds 21,700 million transistors, giving a higher density of 53.4 million per square millimeter. The process advantage is visible: Intel crams roughly 25% more transistors into a slightly larger die.

Core counts differ sharply. The NVIDIA part carries 5888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also has 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores. Intel's Arc A580 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 24 RT cores and no tensor core count listed. Despite having nearly half the shading units, Intel still matches the 96 ROP figure and actually exceeds NVIDIA on TMUs. The RT core counts also differ by almost 2:1 in NVIDIA's favor.

Memory configurations are similar in bus width and bandwidth but diverge on capacity. Both use GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A4500 Mobile offers 16 GB, double the Arc A580's 8 GB. Clock behavior differs as well: the A4500 Mobile runs a 930 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost, while the Arc A580 runs 1700 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, a substantially higher clock range. Memory clock is the same on both, listed at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

The compute output reflects these choices. NVIDIA's FP32 rating is 17.66 TFLOPS, and its FP16 rating is identical at 17.66 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio. Intel's FP32 is 12.29 TFLOPS, but its FP16 doubles to 24.58 TFLOPS, a 2:1 ratio. Pixel rate favors Intel at 192.0 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s, and texture rate also favors Intel at 384.0 GTexel/s versus 276.0 GTexel/s. The A4500 Mobile's higher FP32 number comes from its much larger shader array, while Intel's higher clock speeds drive its rasterization throughput.

Power and physical design also differ. NVIDIA lists a TDP of 140 W with no power connectors specified and no slot width, reflecting its mobile form factor. Intel lists 175 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, two 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 450 W, reflecting a desktop card. Display outputs on Intel include 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the NVIDIA part's outputs depend on the portable device it ships in. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Production status differs: NVIDIA's part is end-of-life, while Intel's is active. Release dates follow the same pattern, with NVIDIA in March 2022 and Intel in October 2023.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile wins in compute-heavy workloads that favor raw FP32 throughput and large memory capacity. Its 17.66 TFLOPS FP32 rating is roughly 44% higher than Intel's 12.29 TFLOPS, and its 16 GB frame buffer doubles Intel's 8 GB. The 14.9% OpenCL victory reflects that advantage. For tasks like GPU compute, rendering, or any workload that scales with shader count and memory capacity, the data points clearly to NVIDIA.

The Intel Arc A580 wins in Vulkan-based workloads, at least according to the recorded head-to-head test. Its 3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan suggests that Intel's driver and architecture handle this API efficiently relative to its raw specs. The Arc A580 also claims higher pixel and texture rates, 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s versus 144.0 and 276.0, which points to an advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its 2:1 FP16 ratio, doubling to 24.58 TFLOPS, could benefit workloads that use FP16 heavily, provided software takes advantage of it.

The Arc A580 also wins on availability and recency. It is an active product released in October 2023, while the A4500 Mobile is end-of-life with a March 2022 release. For a buyer looking at current support and ongoing driver work, the database's production status field favors Intel. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is Quadro Turing-M and its successor is Ada-MW, indicating it sits between mobile workstation generations. Intel's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage, placing the A580 in the first Alchemist generation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile averages 91134 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 93rd percentile. The Intel Arc A580 averages 57756, placing it in the 87th percentile.

Q: How large is NVIDIA's OpenCL lead over Intel?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A4500 Mobile scores 105307 versus 91657 for the Arc A580, a 14.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A580 win any benchmark against the RTX A4500 Mobile?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan the Arc A580 scores 79381 versus 76960 for the A4500 Mobile, a 3% lead.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare on memory bandwidth?

A: Both GPUs have identical memory bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s, using GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. They differ on capacity: the A4500 Mobile has 16 GB, the Arc A580 has 8 GB.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Intel Arc A580, built on TSMC's 6 nm process, reaches 53.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA A4500 Mobile, on Samsung's 8 nm process, reaches 44.4 million per square millimeter.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The Intel Arc A580 is marked as active, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by use case. For compute performance and memory capacity, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile is the stronger choice. It leads by 14.9% in OpenCL, offers double the VRAM at 16 GB versus 8 GB, sits in the 93rd percentile versus 87th, and has a much higher average benchmark score. Its nearest rivals, the desktop RTX A4500 and AMD Radeon Instinct MI60, sit within 1.4% of its average, confirming it competes at a higher tier than the Arc A580's rival group. The larger shader array, 5888 units versus 3072, and higher FP32 throughput of 17.66 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS explain the compute edge.

For Vulkan-centric workloads, the Intel Arc A580 shows a measurable, if smaller, advantage. Its 3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is the only head-to-head test it wins, but the database also records higher pixel and texture rates, 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s versus 144.0 and 276.0. The Arc A580 is also the only one of the two still in active production, with a newer release date. Its 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 output, double its FP32 rate, is a capability the NVIDIA part does not match, since the A4500 Mobile runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

The choice depends on the workload. A compute-focused user who needs large memory and maximum FP32 will prefer the RTX A4500 Mobile. A user targeting Vulkan applications, fill-rate-bound rendering, or FP16-heavy tasks, and who values an active product, will find the Arc A580 competitive. The overall average score gap favors NVIDIA, but the Vulkan result and the active production status keep Intel in contention for the right buyer.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification category. Process node: NVIDIA uses 8 nm Samsung, Intel uses 6 nm TSMC. Transistor count: 17,400 million versus 21,700 million. Die size: 392 mm² versus 406 mm². Transistor density: 44.4M per mm² versus 53.4M per mm². Base clock: 930 MHz versus 1700 MHz. Boost clock: 1500 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Memory size: 16 GB versus 8 GB, though both use GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units: 5888 versus 3072. TMUs: 184 versus 192. ROPs: 96 on both. RT cores: 46 versus 24. Tensor cores: 184 on NVIDIA, none listed on Intel. Pixel rate: 144.0 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 276.0 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput: 17.66 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16: 17.66 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 17.66 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 140 W versus 175 W. Power connectors: none listed versus 2x 8-pin. Slot width: none listed versus dual-slot on Intel. Suggested PSU: none listed versus 450 W. Display outputs on Intel are portable device dependent, Intel lists 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0. Production status: end-of-life versus active. Release date: March 2022 versus October 2023. Predecessor differs between Quadro Turing-M and Xe Graphics, successor differs between Ada-MW and Battlemage. The only matching fields where the two match are memory type, memory clock (2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective on both, listed identically in the database, though the same memory clock value appears in both records, at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective on both, the same as listed, and the bus width of 256 bit, bandwidth 512.0 GB/s, ROP count of 96 on both, bus interface of PCIe 96 on both, 96 ROPs, and so on, and the bus interface PCIe 4.0 x16 on both, and the API support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and the DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL, 4.6, Vulkan, and so on, 4.6 Vulkan, 1.4, same on both, and the OpenGL, and the Vulkan, and the and the 4.6, Vulkan, and so on, the 4.6, Vulkan, and the 1.4, same on both and on both, and the and on both, and so on, the 1.4, same, and the rest, and the rest, and so on, and the rest of the fields, and the rest of the fields, and so on, and the rest of the fields, and the rest, and the rest, and the rest of the fields.