Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A730M wins both shared benchmark tests decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A730M scores 70,352 against the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 40,098 — a 75.5% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a generational gap expressed in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan result tells the same story, with the Arc A730M posting 64,693 versus 46,425 for the Quadro, a 39.3% delta. Across both tests, the Arc A730M claims two wins; the Quadro M6000 24 GB claims none.

Context matters here. The Arc A730M’s average benchmark score of 45,592 places it in the 84th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB sits at 43,262 in the 83rd percentile. The percentile difference is narrow — one point — but the head-to-head deltas are not. The Arc A730M’s nearest rivals are clustered tightly: 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 (1.0% behind). The Arc A730M essentially trades blows with modern workstation and flagship-mobile silicon. The Quadro M6000 24 GB, by contrast, sits alongside the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 43,268 (0.0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER at 43,223 (0.1% behind). Its closest comparison is literally itself — the non-24 GB Quadro M6000 at 43,301 is 0.1% slower.

The 75.5% OpenCL gap is the headline. OpenCL workloads often stress raw FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth; the Arc A730M delivers 12.60 TFLOPS FP32 against 6.844 TFLOPS for the Quadro, and 336.0 GB/s against 317.4 GB/s. Those numbers explain the delta. The Vulkan gap, while smaller, still shows the Arc A730M at 39.3% ahead — a margin that holds up even when the Quadro’s architecture is allowed its best API. There is no benchmark in the shared set where the Quadro M6000 24 GB pulls ahead. The verdict from the data is straightforward: on every measured workload, the Intel part is faster, often by a wide margin.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent opposite ends of a hardware design spectrum. 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 on a 6 nm TSMC process, packing 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 53.4 million per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB uses the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. It is built on a 28 nm TSMC process with 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die — a transistor density of just 13.3 million per mm². The Intel chip crams nearly four times as many transistors per square millimeter into a die that is 32% smaller.

Clock behavior reflects these process differences. The Arc A730M runs a base clock of 1100 MHz and boosts to 2050 MHz, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB operates at 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. The Arc A730M’s boost clock is 84% higher. Memory clocks follow suit: the Intel part uses 1750 MHz memory with 14 Gbps effective speed, while the Quadro uses 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective. The memory types differ — GDDR6 on the Intel side, GDDR5 on the NVIDIA side — and the bus widths differ too: 192-bit for the Arc A730M versus 384-bit for the Quadro. The wider Quadro bus cannot overcome the slower GDDR5; the Arc A730M’s 336.0 GB/s bandwidth edges out the Quadro’s 317.4 GB/s.

Core counts are identical on paper: both have 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. But the Intel chip adds 24 ray tracing cores — hardware the Maxwell 2.0 GPU lacks entirely. The Arc A730M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) with Vulkan 1.4. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both. The Intel part has no tensor cores listed; neither does the Quadro. The Arc A730M’s FP16 throughput is 25.19 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the Quadro does not report at all.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The Arc A730M is rated at 80 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics package) with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro M6000 24 GB draws 250 W, is a dual-slot card, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, uses 1x 8-pin power connectors, and measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length with 111 mm (4.4 inches) height. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the Intel part, PCIe 3.0 x16 for the NVIDIA. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has a release date of 2016-03-04 and carries a launch MSRP of 4,999 USD; the Arc A730M has no release date or launch MSRP listed. Both are end-of-life products.

# The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Intel Arc A730M is the faster GPU in every shared benchmark. It wins OpenCL by 75.5% and Vulkan by 39.3%. Its average benchmark score of 45,592 is 5.4% higher than the Quadro’s 43,262, and its 84th percentile standing confirms it belongs to a higher performance tier. The Quadro M6000 24 GB’s sole advantages are its 24 GB memory capacity — double the Arc A730M’s 12 GB — and its older, wider 384-bit bus, which does not translate into a bandwidth win. For compute-heavy tasks, the Arc A730M is the clear choice.

But there is nuance for specific buyers. The Quadro M6000 24 GB targets a different era and a different use case. Its 24 GB of GDDR5, while slower, offers double the capacity for datasets that exceed 12 GB. Its dual-slot professional form factor, 1x 8-pin power requirement, and 600 W suggested PSU are all from a workstation-class design philosophy. The Arc A730M, with its 80 W TDP and IGP form factor, is a mobile-first part. If the workload fits in 12 GB and demands speed, the Arc A730M wins outright. If the workload requires more than 12 GB of frame buffer, the Quadro M6000 24 GB is the only option that satisfies that constraint — but it will deliver that capacity at roughly half the FP32 throughput.

# Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc A730M | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB |

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

| Process node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 21,700 million | 8,000 million |

| Die size | 406 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor density | 53.4M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1100 MHz | 988 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2050 MHz | 1114 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 12 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 192 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 317.4 GB/s |

| RT cores | 24 | None |

| Pixel rate | 196.8 GPixel/s | 106.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 393.6 GTexel/s | 213.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 12.60 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 25.19 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 80 W | 250 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None listed | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 600 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm length, 111 mm height |

| Release date | Not listed | 2016-03-04 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 4,999 USD |

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Intel Arc A730M wins decisively, scoring 70,352 against the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 40,098 — a 75.5% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the Arc A730M in Vulkan?

A: The Arc A730M scores 64,693 versus 46,425 for the Quadro M6000 24 GB, a 39.3% lead.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 24 GB have more memory bandwidth?

A: No. Despite a 384-bit bus, its GDDR5 memory delivers 317.4 GB/s, which is lower than the Arc A730M’s 336.0 GB/s over a 192-bit GDDR6 bus.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The Arc A730M delivers 12.60 TFLOPS FP32, nearly double the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 6.844 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 24 GB support ray tracing?

A: No. It has no RT cores, while the Arc A730M includes 24 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Arc A730M is rated at 80 W TDP and is an IGP, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB draws 250 W and is a dual-slot card requiring a 600 W suggested PSU.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A730M wins every benchmark where the two are compared. It is the pick for compute throughput, ray-traced workloads (thanks to its 24 RT cores), DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and any scenario where power efficiency matters — its 80 W TDP is less than a third of the Quadro’s 250 W. The data shows it is also the better choice for Vulkan and OpenCL applications, with margins of 39.3% and 75.5% respectively. Its 84th percentile ranking and proximity to modern GPUs like the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (0.8% delta) confirm it competes with current-generation hardware.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins only on memory capacity. Its 24 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is double the Arc A730M’s 12 GB. For workloads that must hold large datasets entirely in VRAM — certain rendering scenes, large ML inference batches, or multi-display professional visualization — the Quadro’s capacity is the deciding factor. It also has more display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.2 plus 1x DVI) compared to the Arc A730M’s portable-device-dependent outputs, making it the better fit for fixed multi-monitor workstation setups. Its 2016 release date and 4,999 USD launch MSRP place it in a professional workstation lineage, but its 83rd percentile ranking shows it has been overtaken by newer parts. For any workload that fits within 12 GB, the Arc A730M is faster; for workloads that exceed 12 GB, the Quadro M6000 24 GB is the only option that fits the data. The choice is capacity versus speed, and the benchmark data favors speed.