Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA CMP 50HX Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data reveals a decisive pattern: the Intel Arc A730M wins both shared benchmark tests, and it does so by substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A730M scores 70,352 against the CMP 50HX’s 56,135 — a 20.2% advantage. The Vulkan gap is even wider: 64,693 versus 47,445, a 26.7% lead for Intel. These are not marginal wins; they represent a consistent performance tier separation across both compute APIs.

The CMP 50HX’s best showing comes in OpenCL, where it narrows the gap to 20.2% — still a loss, but notably closer than the Vulkan deficit. This suggests the NVIDIA chip’s compute strengths are more pronounced in OpenCL workloads, while Intel’s architecture pulls further ahead in Vulkan’s lower-level command and synchronization model. The average benchmark scores reinforce the trend: the Arc A730M averages 45,592 across all tests, while the CMP 50HX averages 51,790 — a 13.6% overall advantage for NVIDIA when including tests not shared head-to-head. The paradox is worth noting: NVIDIA wins the broader average, but loses every directly comparable benchmark.

Context from the nearest rivals sharpens the picture. The CMP 50HX sits at the 86th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score 1.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT (50,951) and 3.6% above the RX Vega 64 (50,001). The Arc A730M, at the 84th percentile, trades blows with a different tier: it is 0.5% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45,384) and 1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile (45,152), while trailing the RTX 5880 Ada Generation by 0.8% (45,972). The Intel part’s percentile placement, despite its head-to-head wins, reflects a benchmark suite weighted toward desktop-class workloads where the CMP 50HX’s larger memory bus and raw throughput matter more.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Intel Arc A730M wins with a score of 70,352 versus the NVIDIA CMP 50HX’s 56,135, a 20.2% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The Arc A730M scores 64,693 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 26.7% higher than the CMP 50HX’s 47,445.

Q: Does the CMP 50HX outperform the Arc A730M in any shared benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the CMP 50HX and two wins for the Arc A730M across the two tests they share.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The CMP 50HX averages 51,790 across all its benchmarks, while the Arc A730M averages 45,592 — a 13.6% gap in NVIDIA’s favor when including non-shared tests.

Q: Where does each GPU rank among all GPUs?

A: The CMP 50HX is at the 86th percentile, while the Arc A730M is at the 84th percentile.

Q: What do the nearest rival comparisons reveal about each GPU’s competitive tier?

A: The CMP 50HX is 1.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT and 3.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti. The Arc A730M is 0.5% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT and 1% above the RTX 5090 Mobile, but 1% below the RTX A2000.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from fundamentally different design philosophies. The CMP 50HX uses NVIDIA’s Turing architecture on a 12 nm TSMC process, packing 18,600 million transistors into a 754 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 24.7 million per mm² — a relatively relaxed layout for a large chip. The Arc A730M, by contrast, uses Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC node, with 21,700 million transistors squeezed into a 406 mm² die, achieving a density of 53.4 million per mm². The Intel chip is smaller, denser, and built on a newer process.

The compute resources tell a story of divergent priorities. The CMP 50HX fields 3,584 shading units, 192 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 448 tensor cores. The Arc A730M counters with 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 24 RT cores — but has no tensor cores listed. NVIDIA’s chip leans on its tensor core count for AI-related compute, while Intel’s design focuses on raw rasterization and ray tracing with fewer, presumably larger, RT units.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The CMP 50HX runs a 1350 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost, a conservative range for a 250 W desktop card. The Arc A730M starts at 1100 MHz base but boosts to 2050 MHz — a 950 MHz boost window that suggests aggressive power management typical of mobile parts. The memory subsystems diverge too: the CMP 50HX uses a 320-bit bus with 560.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Arc A730M uses a narrower 192-bit bus at 336.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA part’s bandwidth advantage is substantial, but the Intel part’s higher clocks partially compensate in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these trade-offs. The Arc A730M achieves 196.8 GPixel/s and 393.6 GTexel/s, versus 123.6 GPixel/s and 296.6 GTexel/s for the CMP 50HX. Despite fewer shading units, Intel’s higher boost clock and extra ROPs drive superior pixel throughput. The FP32 compute also favors Intel: 12.60 TFLOPS versus 11.07 TFLOPS, with FP16 similarly ahead at 25.19 versus 22.15 TFLOPS.

# Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every major specification. The process node is 12 nm for NVIDIA versus 6 nm for Intel. Transistor counts are 18,600 million versus 21,700 million, and die sizes are 754 mm² versus 406 mm². The CMP 50HX has more shading units (3,584 vs 3,072) and more RT cores (56 vs 24), plus 448 tensor cores where Intel lists none. The Arc A730M has more ROPs (96 vs 80), while TMU counts are equal at 192.

Memory differs in capacity and bandwidth: 10 GB GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus for the CMP 50HX, versus 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus for the Arc A730M. Bandwidth favors NVIDIA at 560.0 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s. Clock speeds run 1350/1545 MHz for NVIDIA versus 1100/2050 MHz for Intel. Power consumption is a stark contrast: 250 W TDP for the CMP 50HX versus 80 W for the Arc A730M. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU; the Intel part is listed as IGP with no power connectors or PSU recommendation. The CMP 50HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, while the Arc A730M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are absent on the CMP 50HX, while the Arc A730M offers portable-device-dependent outputs. Both share DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

# The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the Intel Arc A730M dominates the shared benchmarks, winning both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan by 20.2% and 26.7%, respectively. Yet the CMP 50HX holds a 13.6% higher average benchmark score (51,790 vs 45,592) and a higher percentile ranking (86th vs 84th). This contradiction demands interpretation.

The CMP 50HX appears optimized for workloads that reward memory bandwidth and sustained throughput — its 320-bit bus and 560.0 GB/s bandwidth are class-leading. The Arc A730M, with its 2050 MHz boost clock and 96 ROPs, excels in latency-sensitive and fill-rate-heavy tasks. If a user’s application is Vulkan-based, the Arc A730M is the clear choice. If the workload is closer to the average across all GPU tests, the CMP 50HX’s higher mean suggests broader consistency.

Power efficiency is not ambiguous: the Arc A730M delivers its wins at 80 W, versus 250 W for the CMP 50HX. That 170 W difference is enormous, and it makes the Intel part’s victories more impressive per watt. The CMP 50HX also lacks display outputs entirely, which limits it to compute or mining use cases. The Arc A730M, being an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs, is far more flexible for actual systems.

# Where Each One Wins

Intel Arc A730M wins in every directly compared benchmark. Its 20.2% OpenCL lead and 26.7% Vulkan lead are decisive. The higher pixel rate (196.8 vs 123.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (393.6 vs 296.6 GTexel/s) suggest advantages in resolution-bound rasterization. The 6 nm process and 80 W TDP make it the choice for power-constrained or mobile environments. Its 12 GB memory capacity also exceeds the CMP 50HX’s 10 GB, which matters for larger datasets.

NVIDIA CMP 50HX wins on average benchmark score (51,790 vs 45,592) and percentile placement (86th vs 84th). Its 560.0 GB/s bandwidth and 448 tensor cores indicate strengths in bandwidth-hungry compute tasks and AI-related workloads, despite the absence of tensor cores being listed for Intel. The 250 W TDP and dual-slot design imply a desktop-centric use case where power is not a constraint. Its 320-bit memory bus is a substantial asset for large data transfers.

The data’s implication: choose the Arc A730M for Vulkan-centric workloads, mobile deployment, or power-sensitive builds. Choose the CMP 50HX for applications that align with the broader GPU benchmark average, especially those needing high memory bandwidth or tensor-core acceleration. The CMP 50HX’s lack of display outputs, however, makes it unsuitable for any interactive use — a hard limitation that no benchmark score can overcome.