Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Comparison

# Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti

The Intel Arc A730M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, despite both being end-of-life products. The A730M is a mobile-first integrated graphics processor from Intel’s Alchemist generation, built on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the RTX 3080 Ti is a dual-slot desktop flagship from NVIDIA’s Ampere family, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm node. The benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap: the RTX 3080 Ti wins all three head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 58.6% to 66.4%. However, the A730M’s power envelope and architectural approach suggest it was designed for a completely different use case, one where raw throughput takes a back seat to efficiency and integration.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3080 Ti is the clear winner in every measured benchmark, but the nature of its victories tells a story about workload suitability. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the RTX 3080 Ti scores 5077 against the A730M’s 1732, a 65.9% advantage. This is a modern DirectX 12 workload that stresses geometry, ray tracing, and asynchronous compute — areas where the 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores of the Ampere architecture shine. The A730M, with 24 RT cores and no tensor core count listed, simply cannot keep pace in this scenario.

In compute-oriented tests, the gap persists but shifts slightly. Geekbench OpenCL shows the RTX 3080 Ti at 170037 versus 70352 for the A730M, a 58.6% lead. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: 192697 for the NVIDIA card versus 64693 for Intel, a 66.4% margin. The RTX 3080 Ti’s 34.10 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, more than 2.7 times the A730M’s 12.60 TFLOPS, explains this dominance in raw compute. For users running GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulations, or AI inference, the RTX 3080 Ti is the only viable option between these two.

The A730M’s wins are not in performance but in integration and power. With an 80 W TDP versus the RTX 3080 Ti’s 350 W, the Intel part consumes less than a quarter of the power. Its IGP slot width means it requires no separate card, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU rating — the RTX 3080 Ti, by contrast, needs a 750 W power supply and a 1x 12-pin connector. For thin-and-light laptops or compact systems where space and thermal headroom are scarce, the A730M is the practical choice, even if it loses every benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel’s DG2-512 chip uses the Xe-HPG architecture, built on a 6 nm TSMC process with 21,700 million transistors packed into a 406 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 53.4M per mm², which is notably higher than NVIDIA’s 45.1M per mm² on the GA102 chip. The A730M’s denser design allows for 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, all within a power budget that is a fraction of the RTX 3080 Ti’s.

NVIDIA’s GA102, by contrast, is a larger and more power-hungry design. With 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, it uses an 8 nm Samsung process that is less dense but allows for significantly more compute resources: 10240 shading units, 320 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 80 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores. The FP32 performance of 34.10 TFLOPS is achieved with a 1:1 FP16 ratio, meaning the card does not rely on packed math to reach its peak — it delivers the same throughput for both precision levels. The A730M’s FP16 performance of 25.19 TFLOPS is achieved at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves its rate for FP32, a common approach in consumer GPUs.

Memory architecture further separates these two. The RTX 3080 Ti uses a 384-bit bus with 12 GB of GDDR6X running at 19 Gbps effective, yielding 912.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The A730M has a narrower 192-bit bus with 12 GB of GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, resulting in 336.0 GB/s — less than 37% of the NVIDIA card’s bandwidth. This memory disparity directly impacts high-resolution gaming and data-intensive workloads. The RTX 3080 Ti also supports a wider set of display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the A730M’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile-first design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three benchmark comparisons are unambiguous in their outcome, but the margins reveal interesting patterns. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RTX 3080 Ti’s score of 5077 versus 1732 for the A730M represents a 65.9% deficit for Intel. This test is particularly demanding on ray tracing and mesh shading, where the NVIDIA card’s 80 RT cores provide a substantial advantage. The A730M’s 24 RT cores, while present, are far fewer and likely less efficient per core given the 2:1 FP16 ratio.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a slightly smaller gap at 58.6%, with the RTX 3080 Ti scoring 170037 against 70352. OpenCL workloads often scale with raw shader count and memory bandwidth, both of which heavily favor NVIDIA. The 10240 shading units versus 3072 is a 3.3x difference, and the 912.4 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s is a 2.7x difference. The smaller margin here compared to Steel Nomad suggests that the A730M’s architecture is relatively more competitive in compute tasks that do not heavily utilize ray tracing or tensor operations.

Vulkan performance shows the largest gap at 66.4%, with the RTX 3080 Ti at 192697 and the A730M at 64693. Vulkan’s low-level nature allows developers to extract more performance from hardware, and the RTX 3080 Ti’s superior raw resources — more TMUs (320 vs 192), more ROPs (112 vs 96), and higher texture rate (532.8 GTexel/s vs 393.6 GTexel/s) — contribute to this dominance. The pixel rates are closer (186.5 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 196.8 GPixel/s for Intel), which is notable: the A730M actually has a higher pixel fill rate despite its overall inferiority. This suggests that in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as simple 2D rendering or certain post-processing effects, the Intel part may not fall as far behind as the aggregate scores imply.

The average benchmark scores place these GPUs in different leagues. The A730M’s avgBenchmarkScore is 45592, with a percentile rank of 84 among all GPUs. The RTX 3080 Ti’s avgBenchmarkScore is 41187, with a percentile rank of 83. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the different benchmark suites used: the A730M’s three tests are all modern 3D workloads, while the RTX 3080 Ti’s ten tests include older DirectX 9 and 10 benchmarks where its scores are modest (274 and 184, respectively). The RTX 3080 Ti’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (0.8% higher) and NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB (1.2% lower), while the A730M sits within 1% of the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT and NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation. This positioning suggests that the A730M, despite losing decisively to the RTX 3080 Ti, is a competent mid-range part in the broader GPU ecosystem.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the RTX 3080 Ti outperforms the A730M by 58.6% to 66.4% across all three shared benchmarks. For any workload that demands peak performance — modern gaming at high resolutions, ray tracing, compute-heavy rendering, or AI inference — the RTX 3080 Ti is the only choice between these two. Its 34.10 TFLOPS FP32, 80 RT cores, and 912.4 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a level of capability that the A730M cannot approach. The 350 W TDP and dual-slot form factor are a reasonable trade-off for users who prioritize performance above all else.

However, the A730M’s 80 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of external power requirements make it a compelling option for a completely different set of scenarios. In ultra-portable laptops or compact desktops where power delivery and thermal dissipation are constrained, the A730M offers 12 GB of VRAM and modern API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4) at a fraction of the power draw. Its 84th percentile rank, with an average score within 1% of the RTX 5880 Ada Generation and RTX 5090 Mobile, indicates it is not a weak performer in absolute terms — it simply faces a far stronger opponent in this comparison.

The decision hinges on the use case. If the system must be mobile, low-power, or space-constrained, the A730M is the pragmatic pick. If the goal is maximum performance in a desktop with adequate cooling and power delivery, the RTX 3080 Ti wins without contest. There is no middle ground in this matchup; the data supports only these two distinct conclusions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti scores 5077 versus 1732 for the Intel Arc A730M, making it 65.9% faster in this test.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The RTX 3080 Ti has 912.4 GB/s bandwidth over a 384-bit bus with GDDR6X, while the A730M has 336.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus with GDDR6.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The A730M has an 80 W TDP and no external power connectors, while the RTX 3080 Ti has a 350 W TDP, requires a 1x 12-pin connector, and suggests a 750 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc A730M has a pixel rate of 196.8 GPixel/s, which is higher than the RTX 3080 Ti’s 186.5 GPixel/s, despite the NVIDIA card winning all benchmark comparisons.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU based on average score?

A: The A730M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (0.5% higher), while the RTX 3080 Ti’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (0.8% higher).

Q: How do their compute performances differ in FP32?

A: The RTX 3080 Ti delivers 34.10 TFLOPS FP32, while the A730M delivers 12.60 TFLOPS FP32, giving NVIDIA a 2.7x advantage in raw single-precision compute.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A730M | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti |

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

| Process Node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 21,700 million | 28,300 million |

| Die Size | 406 mm² | 628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 53.4M / mm² | 45.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | 1365 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2050 MHz | 1665 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 912.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 10240 |

| TMUs | 192 | 320 |

| ROPs | 96 | 112 |

| RT Cores | 24 | 80 |

| Tensor Cores | Not specified | 320 |

| Pixel Rate | 196.8 GPixel/s | 186.5 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 393.6 GTexel/s | 532.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 12.60 TFLOPS | 34.10 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 25.19 TFLOPS (2:1) | 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 80 W | 350 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None listed | 1x 12-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 750 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | Not listed | 2021-05-30 |