Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear but narrow victory for the Intel Arc A730M across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel part scores 70,352 against the NVIDIA CMP 30HX’s 65,199, a 7.3% advantage for Intel. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with Intel’s 64,693 edging out NVIDIA’s 62,484 by 3.4%. These are not overwhelming margins, but they are consistent, suggesting the Intel architecture holds a modest compute lead in both API environments.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX does not win a single head-to-head benchmark in this dataset. Its average benchmark score of 63,842, however, sits far above its rival’s 45,592. That discrepancy is explained by the fact that the Intel Arc A730M’s average includes its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1,732, a low score that drags the average down. The Geekbench results alone would place Intel clearly ahead, but the 3DMark test introduces a different workload that the Intel GPU handles far less effectively. This split is important: the Intel part wins compute-oriented tests but loses heavily in a modern DX12 gaming scene.

Percentile data reinforces the positioning. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX lands in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Arc A730M sits in the 84th. Despite Intel winning both direct comparisons, the database ranks NVIDIA higher overall because of the 3DMark outlier and the broader benchmark pool. The nearest rivals for NVIDIA include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 63,830 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M at 63,775 (0.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 at 64,212 (0.6% ahead). Intel’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT at 45,384 (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972 (0.8% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile at 45,152 (1% behind). These rival clusters show both cards are competitive within their respective performance tiers.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A730M wins on raw compute throughput in the OpenCL and Vulkan API tests. Its 12.60 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the NVIDIA part’s 5.027 TFLOPS, and that gap shows up in the Geekbench scores. If the workload is compute-heavy and uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the data says Intel is the stronger choice. The 7.3% delta in OpenCL and 3.4% delta in Vulkan are both in Intel’s favor, and those are the only two direct comparisons available.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX, despite losing both head-to-head tests, still holds a higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile rank. Its 63,842 average versus 45,592 for Intel comes entirely from the absence of a low-scoring 3DMark result in its benchmark set. The NVIDIA card is also the only one of the two with a launch MSRP, listed at 799 USD, which can be stated as a historical fact but not analyzed for value. In terms of use-case splits, the data suggests Intel for compute tasks that favor OpenCL or Vulkan, and NVIDIA for scenarios where the average across all benchmark types matters more, such as general-purpose GPU compute or legacy API workloads.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,732 for Intel is the single largest drag on its average. This test measures modern DX12 gaming performance, and Intel’s result is far below its Geekbench numbers. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has no equivalent DX12 benchmark in the dataset, so a direct gaming comparison is not possible. However, the database ranking implies that NVIDIA’s overall standing is not hurt by any similarly weak result, which gives it an advantage in aggregate metrics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design philosophies. NVIDIA’s CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per mm². Intel’s Arc A730M uses the DG2-512 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 6 nm node. This allows Intel to fit 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, achieving a density of 53.4 million per mm². The density difference is stark: Intel crams more than twice the transistors per area into its die, a direct result of the smaller process node.

Shading hardware tells a similar story. The Intel part has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operations units. The NVIDIA card has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Intel’s raw hardware counts are more than double in every category. The Intel GPU also includes 24 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA Turing chip has no dedicated RT cores listed in the database. This gives Intel a hardware-level advantage for ray-traced workloads, at least on paper.

Clock speeds differ in an interesting way. The NVIDIA card has a higher base clock at 1530 MHz versus Intel’s 1100 MHz, but Intel boosts much higher at 2050 MHz versus 1785 MHz. The NVIDIA part relies on a higher idle baseline, while Intel pushes further under load. Memory is identical in type and effective speed: both use GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, with a 192-bit bus and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. However, Intel has 12 GB of memory versus NVIDIA’s 6 GB, doubling the capacity. Pixel rate and texture rate follow the hardware counts, with Intel at 196.8 GPixel/s and 393.6 GTexel/s, versus NVIDIA’s 85.68 GPixel/s and 157.1 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on almost every core specification. Process node: NVIDIA is 12 nm, Intel is 6 nm. Transistor count: 6,600 million versus 21,700 million. Die size: 284 mm² versus 406 mm². Density: 23.2M/mm² versus 53.4M/mm². Base clock: 1530 MHz versus 1100 MHz. Boost clock: 1785 MHz versus 2050 MHz. Memory size: 6 GB versus 12 GB. Shading units: 1,408 versus 3,072. TMUs: 88 versus 192. ROPs: 48 versus 96. RT cores: none versus 24. Pixel rate: 85.68 GPixel/s versus 196.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 157.1 GTexel/s versus 393.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 5.027 TFLOPS versus 12.60 TFLOPS. FP16: 10.05 TFLOPS versus 25.19 TFLOPS. TDP: 125 W versus 80 W. The NVIDIA card is a dual-slot design with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W PSU, while the Intel part is an IGP with no power connector and no suggested PSU, as it relies on the host device.

Bus interface also separates them: NVIDIA uses PCIe 1.0 x4, which is an odd and notably old specification, while Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x16, providing far more bandwidth for data transfer. Display outputs are another major split: the NVIDIA card has no outputs, as it is a mining-only product, while the Intel card’s outputs are described as portable device dependent, meaning it can drive displays but the implementation varies by laptop or portable system. DirectX support differs too: NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), a newer feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card has a release date of February 24, 2021, while Intel’s release date is not recorded. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc A730M, with 12.60 TFLOPS, is more than double the NVIDIA CMP 30HX’s 5.027 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Intel Arc A730M scores 70,352, which is 7.3% higher than the NVIDIA CMP 30HX’s 65,199.

Q: Why is the NVIDIA card’s average benchmark score higher despite losing both head-to-head tests?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has an average of 63,842, while Intel’s average is 45,592. Intel’s average is pulled down by its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,732, which is far lower than its Geekbench results.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both use GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective with a 192-bit bus, giving each a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc A730M has 24 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX has none listed in the database.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has a TDP of 125 W, while the Intel Arc A730M has a TDP of 80 W, making Intel the more power-efficient option on paper.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different products with opposite strengths. The Intel Arc A730M wins every direct benchmark comparison available, taking both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests with margins of 7.3% and 3.4%. It has more than twice the shading units, more than twice the memory, a smaller process node, and dedicated ray tracing cores. Its FP32 throughput of 12.60 TFLOPS is a massive step above the NVIDIA part’s 5.027 TFLOPS. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the Intel GPU is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX, however, holds a higher overall percentile rank at 89 versus Intel’s 84, and a higher average benchmark score of 63,842 versus 45,592. This is entirely due to the Intel card’s weak 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result, which suggests Intel’s DX12 gaming performance is not on the same level as its compute performance. The NVIDIA card also has a higher base clock, a longer track record with a specific release date, and a design that does not rely on the host system for power delivery. It is a dual-slot, 8-pin powered card with a 300 W PSU suggestion, which makes it a standalone component, whereas Intel’s IGP form factor means it is tied to a portable device.

Who should pick which comes down to the workload. If the task is compute-heavy and uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the Intel Arc A730M’s benchmark wins and architectural advantages make it the stronger option. If the user needs a standalone GPU with a higher aggregate benchmark score and a better overall percentile, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX is the safer bet. The Intel card wins the head-to-head, but the NVIDIA card wins the aggregate. The database shows no single winner across all metrics, only a clear split between compute-oriented and general-purpose use cases.