Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA P102-100 and the Intel Arc A730M. These results split the win column one apiece, but the magnitude of each victory tells a different story.

The Intel Arc A730M takes the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively. It scores 70,352 points against the NVIDIA P102-100's 49,602 points. That is a 29.5% margin in Intel's favor, a substantial gap in raw compute throughput. The OpenCL result aligns with the Arc A730M's higher FP32 output, which the database lists at 12.60 TFLOPS, while the P102-100 sits at 10.77 TFLOPS. In workloads that scale well across shading units, the Intel part converts its theoretical advantage into a measurable lead.

The NVIDIA P102-100 answers back in the Geekbench Vulkan test. It posts 67,454 points versus 64,693 points for the Arc A730M. The margin here is 4.3%, a modest but real advantage. This suggests that while the Intel GPU has more raw compute horsepower, the Pascal architecture on the P102-100 handles Vulkan's driver overhead and command processing more efficiently. The P102-100's boost clock of 1683 MHz against the Arc's 2050 MHz does not hurt its Vulkan showing, indicating that memory bandwidth and architecture-level scheduling play a larger role than raw clock speed in this API.

Context from the wider database matters here. The P102-100's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 58,528, which places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. The Arc A730M's average is 45,592, putting it in the 84th percentile. This is a curious split: the Arc wins the only OpenCL result but loses the overall average. The reason is that the Arc A730M's average includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1,732 points, which drags its aggregate down. The P102-100 has no recorded DX12 test, so its average rests entirely on the two Geekbench runs.

The nearest-rival data reinforces the positioning. The P102-100 sits within 0.8% of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM, and just 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT. The Arc A730M, by contrast, trades blows with professional and mobile parts: it is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT, 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile, and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation. These deltas show the Arc A730M competing in a different weight class, one defined by mobile and workstation GPUs, despite its desktop-style chip.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100, with an average benchmark score of 58,528 across its recorded tests, versus 45,592 for the Intel Arc A730M. The P102-100 sits in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A730M sits in the 84th.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Intel Arc A730M wins by a significant margin. It scores 70,352 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 29.5% higher than the P102-100's 49,602.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with 67,454 points, 4.3% ahead of the Arc A730M's 64,693.

Q: Does the Arc A730M have ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes. The Intel Arc A730M includes 24 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA P102-100 has no RT cores listed in the database.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus with 440.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A730M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The NVIDIA P102-100 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP102 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 16 nm process. It packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, which works out to a transistor density of 25.1 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a large, power-hungry desktop-oriented chip from the mining GPU generation, designed for maximum throughput in compute-heavy tasks with no display outputs.

The Intel Arc A730M uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-512 chip, built on TSMC's 6 nm node. It crams 21,700 million transistors into a slightly smaller 406 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 53.4 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a mobile-first design from the Alchemist generation, using a modern foundry process to keep power low while delivering competitive performance.

The transistor counts tell a clear story. The Intel chip has nearly twice as many transistors as the NVIDIA chip, 21,700 million versus 11,800 million, in a smaller physical package. The density advantage is even more stark: 53.4M per mm² versus 25.1M per mm². That is what a more advanced process node enables.

Ray tracing is another major architectural split. The Arc A730M carries 24 dedicated RT cores, while the P102-100 has none. This means hardware-accelerated ray tracing is simply absent on the Pascal part. The Arc A730M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P102-100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The feature-level difference matters for modern titles that leverage mesh shaders and other DX12 Ultimate features.

The shading and texture pipelines are closely matched on paper. The P102-100 has 3,200 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation units. The Arc A730M has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The P102-100 has slightly more shaders and TMUs, but the Arc counters with more ROPs, which explains its higher pixel rate of 196.8 GPixel/s versus 134.6 GPixel/s.

FP16 compute is where the architectures diverge most sharply. The P102-100 manages only 168.3 GFLOPS of FP16, a 1:64 ratio relative to its FP32 output. The Arc A730M delivers 25.19 TFLOPS of FP16, a 2:1 ratio. That is a 150-fold difference in half-precision throughput, which makes the Intel part dramatically better suited for workloads that use FP16 math.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is a clear split: the P102-100 uses 16 nm TSMC, the Arc A730M uses 6 nm TSMC. Transistor counts stand at 11,800 million for NVIDIA and 21,700 million for Intel. Die size favors Intel at 406 mm² versus 471 mm², and transistor density heavily favors Intel at 53.4M per mm² versus 25.1M per mm².

Clock speeds tell a mixed story. The P102-100 has a higher base clock at 1582 MHz versus 1100 MHz, but the Arc A730M has a higher boost clock at 2050 MHz versus 1683 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the P102-100 runs at 1376 MHz with 11 Gbps effective, while the Arc A730M runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and type are major differentiators. The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A730M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA part has more bandwidth, but the Intel part has more than double the capacity.

Compute resources are close but not identical. Shading units: 3,200 for NVIDIA, 3,072 for Intel. TMUs: 200 versus 192. ROPs: 80 versus 96. The P102-100 has higher texture rate at 336.6 GTexel/s versus 393.6 GTexel/s for Intel, which is a reversal: Intel's higher TMU count and clock produce the faster texture rate. Pixel rate favors Intel at 196.8 GPixel/s versus 134.6 GPixel/s. FP32 favors Intel at 12.60 TFLOPS versus 10.77 TFLOPS. FP16 massively favors Intel at 25.19 TFLOPS versus 168.3 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs could not be further apart. The P102-100 draws 250 W, requires a 600 W power supply, needs two 8-pin power connectors, spans 267 mm (10.5 inches), uses a dual-slot cooler, and has no display outputs. The Arc A730M draws only 80 W, is an IGP form factor, requires no external power connectors, has no listed dimensions, and its display outputs are marked as portable device dependent. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 1.0 x4 on the P102-100 versus PCIe 4.0 x16 on the Arc A730M.

API support is nearly identical except for DirectX. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The P102-100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Arc A730M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

The Verdict

The data points to two different buyers. The NVIDIA P102-100 is the stronger choice for Vulkan-based workloads and for anyone who needs pure aggregate benchmark performance. Its 88th percentile standing, average score of 58,528, and 4.3% Vulkan win over the Arc make it the more consistent performer in the recorded tests. The 250 W power draw and dual-slot cooler are non-issues if the system already has the 600 W power supply and physical space. The lack of display outputs means this card is destined for compute duty, not a gaming desktop.

The Intel Arc A730M is the better pick for OpenCL-heavy applications and for mobile or low-power builds. Its 29.5% OpenCL lead over the P102-100 is the single largest performance gap in the head-to-head data. The 80 W TDP, IGP form factor, and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface make it far easier to integrate into a laptop or compact system. The 12 GB memory capacity is double the P102-100's 5 GB, which matters for larger datasets. The 24 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support also make it the only one of the two that can handle hardware ray tracing.

The overall average benchmark score favors the P102-100, but that average excludes the Arc's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result. The P102-100 has no DX12 benchmark in the database, so its average is computed from OpenCL and Vulkan only. Buyers should weight their choice by the actual APIs they will use.

Where Each One Wins

Vulkan and raw aggregate performance: The NVIDIA P102-100 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 67,454 points, a 4.3% margin. Its average benchmark score of 58,528 and 88th percentile ranking also place it above the Arc A730M in overall database standing. If the workload is Vulkan-centric, this is the card.

OpenCL and compute throughput: The Intel Arc A730M dominates OpenCL with 70,352 points, beating the P102-100 by 29.5%. Its FP32 output of 12.60 TFLOPS and FP16 output of 25.19 TFLOPS give it a clear theoretical edge in compute-heavy tasks. The 12 GB memory capacity also supports larger working sets.

Ray tracing and modern graphics features: The Arc A730M is the only one of the two with 24 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The P102-100 has no RT hardware and only DirectX 12 (12_1) support.

Power efficiency and form factor: The Arc A730M draws 80 W versus 250 W, uses no external power connectors, and fits an IGP form factor. The P102-100 needs a 600 W power supply, two 8-pin connectors, and a dual-slot cooler.

Memory bandwidth: The P102-100 delivers 440.3 GB/s over a 320-bit bus, versus 336.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus for the Arc. Applications sensitive to raw bandwidth will prefer the NVIDIA part.

Portability: The Arc A730M is a mobile part with portable device dependent display outputs. The P102-100 has no display outputs at all, making it unsuitable for any system that needs video output from the card itself.