Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 and Intel Arc A730M sit at nearly the same performance tier, with average benchmark scores of 46043 and 45592 respectively, a difference of just 1%. The data shows a clear split: the Arc A730M wins two of the three head-to-head tests, but the RTX A2000 takes the third with a decisive margin. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the Intel part scores 1732 against the NVIDIA’s 1345, a 22.3% advantage. That is the largest gap in either direction across the entire comparison. The Geekbench OpenCL result also favors Intel, 70352 to 67695, a 3.8% edge. However, the RTX A2000 counters in Geekbench Vulkan with 69089 versus 64693, a 6.8% win. The aggregate picture is one of near parity, but the distribution of wins hints at different architectural strengths. The Arc A730M’s lead in Steel Nomad is substantial enough to suggest a meaningful advantage in that specific workload, while the RTX A2000’s Vulkan performance indicates stronger API-level optimization. These are not identical products; they merely land in the same performance bracket.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test delivers the most striking result. The Intel Arc A730M scores 1732, which is 22.3% higher than the RTX A2000’s 1345. This is not a marginal win; it is a decisive one. In the context of their nearest rivals, both GPUs sit within a tight cluster: the RTX A2000 is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation and 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5600M, while the Arc A730M is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT and 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile. The 22.3% delta in Steel Nomad is far larger than any of these inter-rival gaps, meaning the Arc A730M is not just edging out the RTX A2000 in this test; it is outperforming it by a wide margin relative to the overall similarity of their average scores.

The Geekbench OpenCL test narrows the field considerably. The Arc A730M wins again, scoring 70352 against 67695, a 3.8% advantage. This result is consistent with the Steel Nomad outcome, suggesting that the Intel GPU’s raw compute throughput translates into a consistent lead in general-purpose compute workloads. Notably, the RTX A2000’s FP32 output is listed at 7.987 TFLOPS, while the Arc A730M is rated at 12.60 TFLOPS, a difference that likely contributes to these results. The OpenCL test is not as lopsided as Steel Nomad, but it reinforces the pattern.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script. Here, the RTX A2000 scores 69089, beating the Arc A730M’s 64693 by 6.8%. This is the only test where NVIDIA comes out ahead, and it does so with a comfortable margin. Vulkan is a low-level API that often rewards driver efficiency and architectural design choices. The RTX A2000’s win here suggests that its Ampere architecture, with 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, handles this API more effectively than Intel’s Xe-HPG design, which has 24 RT cores and no dedicated tensor core count listed. The delta is not as large as Intel’s Steel Nomad win, but it is significant enough to show that the RTX A2000 is not simply outclassed across the board.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The RTX A2000 uses an 8 nm process from Samsung, while the Arc A730M uses a 6 nm process from TSMC. This gives Intel a density advantage: the Arc A730M packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, yielding a density of 53.4M transistors per mm². The RTX A2000 has 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, for a density of 43.5M transistors per mm². The Intel chip is both larger and denser, which likely explains its higher transistor count and, by extension, its higher FP32 throughput.

The core configurations differ in interesting ways. The RTX A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Arc A730M has fewer shading units at 3072, but more TMUs at 192 and more ROPs at 96. This explains the texture and pixel rate gaps: the Arc A730M achieves 393.6 GTexel/s and 196.8 GPixel/s, versus 124.8 GTexel/s and 57.60 GPixel/s for the RTX A2000. The Intel part has a 3.15x advantage in texture rate and a 3.4x advantage in pixel rate, which are massive differences. These numbers are consistent with the Arc A730M’s larger ROP and TMU counts, and they likely drive its strong showing in 3DMark Steel Nomad, a rasterization-heavy test.

Memory configurations are also distinct. Both use GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, but the Arc A730M has 12 GB versus the RTX A2000’s 6 GB, and its bandwidth is 336.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. The Intel part’s memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA part runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The extra capacity and bandwidth give the Arc A730M a clear advantage in memory-bound scenarios. Clocks differ as well: the RTX A2000 has a base of 562 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz, while the Arc A730M boosts to 2050 MHz from a 1100 MHz base. The Intel GPU also supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 25.19 TFLOPS, versus the RTX A2000’s 1:1 FP16 rate of 7.987 TFLOPS.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has an average benchmark score of 46043, which is 1% higher than the Intel Arc A730M’s 45592. The RTX A2000 also holds a slightly higher percentile rank at 85 versus 84.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12?

A: The Intel Arc A730M wins decisively, scoring 1732 against the RTX A2000’s 1345, a 22.3% advantage. This is the largest performance gap in either direction across all three head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the difference in VRAM capacity?

A: The Intel Arc A730M has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, double the RTX A2000’s 6 GB. Both use a 192-bit bus, but the Arc A730M’s bandwidth is 336.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the RTX A2000 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 69089, beating the Arc A730M’s 64693 by 6.8%. It also has a higher Geekbench Vulkan score than its OpenCL score, while the Arc A730M’s Vulkan score is lower than its OpenCL score.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A730M has a TDP of 80 W, while the NVIDIA RTX A2000 has a TDP of 70 W. The RTX A2000 is a dual-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Arc A730M is an IGP with no listed power connectors or PSU recommendation.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has 3328 shading units, while the Intel Arc A730M has 3072. However, the Arc A730M has more TMUs (192 vs 104) and more ROPs (96 vs 48).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process nodes are different, with the RTX A2000 on 8 nm Samsung and the Arc A730M on 6 nm TSMC. Transistor counts diverge sharply: 12,000 million for NVIDIA versus 21,700 million for Intel, with corresponding die sizes of 276 mm² and 406 mm². The base clocks are 562 MHz versus 1100 MHz, and boost clocks are 1200 MHz versus 2050 MHz, favoring Intel in both cases. Memory clocks differ at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Shading units favor NVIDIA (3328 vs 3072), but TMUs and ROPs heavily favor Intel (192 vs 104, and 96 vs 48). RT core counts are close, with 26 for the RTX A2000 and 24 for the Arc A730M, but tensor cores are only listed for NVIDIA at 104; Intel’s count is null. Pixel rate is 57.60 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 196.8 GPixel/s for Intel, and texture rate is 124.8 GTexel/s versus 393.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 7.987 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 12.60 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16 performance is 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA versus 25.19 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel.

Memory size doubles from 6 GB to 12 GB, though bus width remains 192 bits. Bandwidth increases from 288.0 GB/s to 336.0 GB/s. TDP is 70 W for NVIDIA versus 80 W for Intel. Form factor differs: the RTX A2000 is dual-slot with dimensions of 167 mm length and 69 mm height, while the Arc A730M is an IGP with no listed dimensions. Display outputs also differ: the RTX A2000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Arc A730M’s outputs are portable device dependent. The RTX A2000 has a launch MSRP of 449 USD; the Arc A730M has no launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. The Intel Arc A730M is the stronger choice for raw compute and rasterization-heavy tasks, as evidenced by its 22.3% win in 3DMark Steel Nomad and its 3.8% win in Geekbench OpenCL. Its higher FP32 throughput (12.60 TFLOPS vs 7.987 TFLOPS), larger memory pool (12 GB vs 6 GB), and faster texture and pixel rates all support this conclusion. The RTX A2000, however, wins in Geekbench Vulkan by 6.8%, indicating that its Ampere architecture is better optimized for this specific API. For users prioritizing Vulkan-based workloads, the RTX A2000 is the better option despite its lower raw specs.

The RTX A2000 also holds a slight edge in average benchmark score (46043 vs 45592) and percentile ranking (85 vs 84). Its nearest rival list includes the RTX 5880 Ada Generation at a 0.2% delta, while the Arc A730M’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT at 0.5%. These are marginal differences, but they place the RTX A2000 marginally higher in the aggregate hierarchy. For anyone weighing the two, the decision comes down to whether the workload favors Intel’s compute-heavy design or NVIDIA’s Vulkan efficiency. There is no universal winner; the data supports each in different contexts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A730M wins in scenarios that benefit from high memory bandwidth and raw throughput. Its 336.0 GB/s bandwidth and 12 GB capacity make it suitable for large datasets, and its 393.6 GTexel/s texture rate and 196.8 GPixel/s pixel rate are nearly three and a half times higher than the RTX A2000’s. The 22.3% Steel Nomad victory is a direct result of these specifications, making it the clear pick for DX12 rasterization workloads. Its FP16 output of 25.19 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio also gives it a strong edge in mixed-precision compute tasks.

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins in Vulkan-based applications, where its 6.8% score advantage indicates better driver-level or architectural efficiency. Its 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, combined with a boost clock of 1200 MHz, appear to handle this API more effectively than Intel’s 24 RT cores and no listed tensor core count. The RTX A2000 is also the only one of the two with a dual-slot form factor and fixed display outputs, making it a more conventional discrete GPU solution. For users who rely on Vulkan or need a dedicated card with specific display connectivity, the RTX A2000 is the better fit.