Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

# Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000

The Intel Arc A730M and NVIDIA Quadro M6000 occupy the same 84th percentile among all GPUs, yet they achieve that standing through radically different designs and workloads. The Arc A730M is a mobile-first Alchemist-generation part built on TSMC's 6 nm process, while the Quadro M6000 is a 2015-era Maxwell 2.0 workstation card on 28 nm. Benchmark data shows the Arc A730M winning both head-to-head tests, with a 77.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 37.9% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. However, the average benchmark scores tell a closer story: the Arc A730M averages 45,592 versus the Quadro M6000's 43,301, a gap of roughly 5.3%. This suggests the Intel part excels in compute-heavy synthetic loads, while the NVIDIA card remains competitive in other workloads not captured in these particular tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A730M wins decisively in the two benchmarks available for direct comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A730M scores 70,352 against the Quadro M6000's 39,688 — a 77.3% advantage. This is a massive margin, indicating the Intel part's modern architecture and higher clock speeds translate directly into raw compute throughput. The Arc A730M's FP32 performance of 12.60 TFLOPS versus the Quadro M6000's 6.844 TFLOPS explains much of this gap; the Intel part delivers nearly double the single-precision floating-point capability. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc A730M scores 64,693 versus 46,913, a 37.9% lead. While still substantial, the narrower margin in Vulkan suggests the NVIDIA card's driver maturity or Maxwell's specific strengths narrow the gap in graphics-API workloads compared to pure compute.

The Quadro M6000's wins are not visible in the head-to-head data — it loses both tests. However, its average benchmark score of 43,301 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) and 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223). This indicates the Quadro M6000 remains competitive with much newer hardware in aggregate performance, despite its age. The card's 12 GB GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus provides 317.4 GB/s bandwidth, which is close to the Arc A730M's 336.0 GB/s despite using older memory technology. In scenarios where memory bandwidth matters more than raw compute — such as certain professional visualization workloads — the Quadro M6000 could hold its own, though the data does not directly confirm this.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the Intel Arc A730M is the clear performance winner. It wins both head-to-head tests with margins of 77.3% and 37.9%, and its average score of 45,592 sits 5.3% higher than the Quadro M6000's 43,301. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Arc A730M is the obvious choice. Its 12.60 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 196.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 393.6 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the Quadro M6000's 6.844 TFLOPS, 106.9 GPixel/s, and 213.9 GTexel/s respectively. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and has 24 ray tracing cores, features the Maxwell-based Quadro lacks entirely.

However, the Quadro M6000 remains relevant for specific use cases. Its 12 GB GDDR5 memory matches the Arc A730M's capacity, and its 384-bit bus provides 317.4 GB/s bandwidth — only 5.5% less than the Intel part. The Quadro M6000's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and dual-slot form factor suit traditional workstation builds, while the Arc A730M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) designed for mobile systems with an 80 W TDP versus the Quadro's 250 W. For users with legacy software that relies on NVIDIA's professional driver ecosystem or who need a desktop card with DVI and DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, the Quadro M6000 offers a proven, end-of-life solution. The data cannot adjudicate software compatibility, but the hardware specifications clearly differentiate their intended environments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the largest margin in this comparison. The Intel Arc A730M scores 70,352, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 scores 39,688 — a delta of 77.3% in favor of Intel. This result aligns with the raw compute specifications: the Arc A730M's 3,072 shading units at boost clocks up to 2050 MHz produce 12.60 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro M6000's 3,072 shading units at 1114 MHz boost yield only 6.844 TFLOPS. The Arc A730M also has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 25.19 TFLOPS in half-precision, whereas the Quadro M6000 lists no FP16 capability. The Intel part's 21,700 million transistors on 406 mm² with a 53.4M/mm² density reflect a much more modern design than the Quadro's 8,000 million transistors on 601 mm² at 13.3M/mm².

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a closer contest but still favors Intel. The Arc A730M scores 64,693 versus the Quadro M6000's 46,913, a 37.9% advantage. Vulkan 1.4 support is present on both cards, but the Arc A730M's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) feature set and ray tracing hardware likely contribute to its superior graphics-API performance. The Quadro M6000 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1), lacking the full 12_2 feature set. The pixel rate difference is stark: 196.8 GPixel/s for the Arc A730M versus 106.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro M6000, a 84.1% gap. Similarly, texture rate is 393.6 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s, a 84.0% difference. These fillrate advantages directly impact Vulkan rendering workloads.

The average benchmark scores narrow the overall picture. The Arc A730M's 45,592 average places it 0.5% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45,384) and 1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile (45,152), while sitting 0.8% below the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972). The Quadro M6000's 43,301 average sits 0.1% above the RTX 5050 Mobile and 0.1% above the Quadro M6000 24 GB, while remaining 0.8% below the RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667). Both cards occupy the same percentile tier, but the Arc A730M's two direct benchmark wins establish its superiority in the tested workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A730M averages 45,592, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 averages 43,301 — a difference of approximately 5.3% in favor of Intel.

Q: How large is the lead in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Arc A730M scores 70,352 versus the Quadro M6000's 39,688, giving Intel a 77.3% advantage in that test.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both have 12 GB, but the Arc A730M uses GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus (336.0 GB/s bandwidth), while the Quadro M6000 uses GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus (317.4 GB/s bandwidth).

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Arc A730M has 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die (53.4M / mm²), whereas the Quadro M6000 has 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die (13.3M / mm²).

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A730M has 24 RT cores; the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has no RT cores listed, and its Maxwell 2.0 architecture predates hardware ray tracing.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Arc A730M has an 80 W TDP, while the Quadro M6000 has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested PSU with a single 8-pin power connector.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A730M uses the DG2-512 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation for Arc 7 Mobile. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process with 21,700 million transistors across a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4M / mm². The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. TSMC's 28 nm process hosts 8,000 million transistors on a larger 601 mm² die, with a much lower density of 13.3M / mm². The Arc A730M's base clock of 1100 MHz boosts to 2050 MHz, while the Quadro M6000's base clock of 988 MHz boosts to only 1114 MHz. Both have 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but the Arc A730M adds 24 RT cores — a feature entirely absent from the Maxwell design. The Arc A730M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the Quadro M6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, missing the 12_2 feature level. Memory technology differs fundamentally: the Arc A730M uses GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on a 192-bit bus, while the Quadro M6000 uses GDDR5 at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) on a 384-bit bus.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every physical and performance specification. The Arc A730M has a 6 nm process node versus the Quadro M6000's 28 nm. Transistor counts are 21,700 million versus 8,000 million, with die sizes of 406 mm² versus 601 mm². Clock speeds show the Arc A730M at 1100 MHz base / 2050 MHz boost versus 988 MHz base / 1114 MHz boost. Memory speed is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) GDDR6 versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) GDDR5. Bus width is 192-bit versus 384-bit, but bandwidth favors Intel: 336.0 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s. Pixel rate is 196.8 GPixel/s versus 106.9 GPixel/s; texture rate is 393.6 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 12.60 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS, and the Arc A730M adds 25.19 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) while the Quadro M6000 lists no FP16. TDP is 80 W versus 250 W. The Arc A730M is an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs; the Quadro M6000 is a dual-slot card with 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, requiring a 600 W PSU and one 8-pin connector. The Arc A730M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro M6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Physical dimensions for the Quadro M6000 are 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall; the Arc A730M lists no dimensions. The Quadro M6000 has a release date of 2015-03-20, predecessor Quadro Kepler, and successor Quadro Pascal; the Arc A730M lists no release date, predecessor, or successor. Both are end-of-life, and neither has a launch MSRP listed.