Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile Comparison

The Intel Arc A730M and NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by process node, transistor budget, and performance class. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute, but the specifics of where and how that lead manifests are worth examining in detail.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs were evaluated in two common compute and graphics API benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both tests, the Intel Arc A730M decisively outperforms the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile. The Intel part scores 70,352 in OpenCL against NVIDIA’s 41,263, a delta of 70.5% in favor of the Arc. The Vulkan result is nearly identical in margin, with the Arc scoring 64,693 versus 37,873 for the RTX A500, a 70.8% advantage.

These are substantial wins, not marginal ones. A 70%+ lead in both OpenCL and Vulkan indicates the Arc A730M is in a different performance tier entirely. The consistency across APIs is notable; some architectures favor one API over another, but the Arc’s lead is remarkably stable. This suggests the advantage is rooted in fundamental hardware resources—more shading units, more memory bandwidth, and higher clock speeds—rather than software optimization for a specific API.

Looking at the broader context, the Arc A730M’s average benchmark score of 45,592 places it at the 84th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals, according to the data, are the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972, 0.8% faster) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46,043, 1% faster). The Arc is also 1% ahead of the GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile. This positions the Intel part just below the top-tier workstation and mobile parts, but comfortably above the mid-range.

In contrast, the RTX A500 Mobile’s average score of 39,568 puts it at the 82nd percentile. Its nearest rivals are all AMD Radeon Pro parts: the Pro 575 (39,555, 0% difference), the Pro 575X (39,116, 1.2% slower), and the Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063, 1.2% faster). The RTX A500 sits right in the middle of that cluster, effectively tied with the older Radeon Pro 575. The 6,024-point gap in average score between the Arc and the RTX A500 is significant; the Intel part is not just faster, it is positioned in a completely different competitive bracket.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A730M is faster, scoring 70,352 compared to the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile’s 41,263. This represents a 70.5% advantage for the Intel part.

Q: Does the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile win any of the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. The data lists two head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), and the Intel Arc A730M wins both. The win count is 2 for Intel and 0 for NVIDIA.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A730M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A730M’s average benchmark score is 45,592. It is 0.5% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45,384), 1% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile (45,152), and 0.8% slower than the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972).

Q: What is the performance gap between the two GPUs in Vulkan?

A: The Intel Arc A730M scores 64,693 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile scores 37,873. The Intel part is 70.8% faster in this test.

Q: Where does the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile sit relative to its own competitive set?

A: Its average score is 39,568. It is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39,555), 1.2% ahead of the Radeon Pro 575X (39,116), and 1.9% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40,318).

Q: Is the performance difference between the two consistent across different API tests?

A: Yes. The Intel Arc A730M’s lead is 70.5% in OpenCL and 70.8% in Vulkan. The margin is nearly identical, indicating a consistent architectural advantage rather than an API-specific quirk.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The Intel Arc A730M uses the DG2-512 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, packing 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile, in contrast, uses the GA107S chip based on the Ampere architecture, part of the Ampere-MW generation. It is built on Samsung’s 8 nm process, with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 43.5M per mm².

These process differences have direct consequences. The Intel chip is larger and denser, with 2.5 times the transistor count of the NVIDIA chip. The Xe-HPG architecture also organizes compute resources differently. The Arc A730M has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The RTX A500 Mobile has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Intel part has significantly more of each. Ray tracing hardware also differs: the Arc has 24 ray tracing cores, while the RTX A500 has 16. The NVIDIA part does include 64 tensor cores, a feature the Intel datasheet lists as null, meaning no comparable tensor core count is provided.

Memory architectures are also distinct. The Arc A730M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the RTX A500 has 4 GB on a 64-bit bus. This drives a massive bandwidth difference: 336.0 GB/s for the Intel part versus 96.00 GB/s for the NVIDIA. The Intel chip also clocks higher, with a boost of 2050 MHz versus 1537 MHz for NVIDIA. The combination of more cores, higher clocks, and wider memory is the root cause of the benchmark disparity.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a clear separation in almost every measurable category. The process nodes differ: 6 nm for Intel versus 8 nm for NVIDIA. The transistor counts are 21,700 million versus 8,700 million. Die size is 406 mm² versus 200 mm². The Intel part has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, while the NVIDIA part has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Ray tracing cores are 24 versus 16, and the NVIDIA part uniquely lists 64 tensor cores where Intel lists none.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the Intel base clock is 1100 MHz with a boost of 2050 MHz, while the NVIDIA base is 832 MHz with a boost of 1537 MHz. Memory specifications are also divergent: the Arc has 12 GB at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on a 192-bit bus, for 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A500 has 4 GB at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, for 96.00 GB/s. The resulting fill rates and compute figures follow: the Intel part achieves 196.8 GPixel/s pixel rate and 393.6 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 49.18 GPixel/s and 98.37 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 compute is 12.60 TFLOPS for Intel versus 6.296 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. Notably, FP16 performance is 25.19 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel, while NVIDIA achieves 6.296 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and interface also differ. The Intel Arc A730M has a TDP of 80 W, while the RTX A500 Mobile is rated at 30 W. The Intel part uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both are listed as integrated into the system (IGP slot width), and display outputs are portable-device dependent for both. Production status is end-of-life for both, though NVIDIA’s release date is listed as March 21, 2022, with a predecessor of Quadro Turing-M and successor of Ada-MW.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A730M wins every benchmark where data exists. It is 70.5% faster in OpenCL and 70.8% faster in Vulkan. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that leverages general compute or modern graphics APIs. Its 12 GB memory capacity and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth suggest it is better suited for larger datasets or higher-resolution textures, though no specific benchmark data covers those scenarios. Its higher FP32 and FP16 throughput also position it for compute-heavy tasks.

The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile, despite losing every head-to-head test, has its own strengths. Its 30 W TDP is less than half the Intel part’s 80 W, making it a more power-efficient option for thin-and-light mobile workstations. It also has 64 tensor cores, a feature absent from the Intel datasheet, which could be relevant for AI inference or DLSS-style workloads, though no benchmark data validates this. Its smaller 4 GB memory footprint and 64-bit bus are clear limitations, but for basic display output and light 3D work, the lower power draw is an advantage.

In terms of competitive positioning, the Arc A730M sits at the 84th percentile, trading blows with the RTX 5880 Ada Generation and RTX A2000. The RTX A500 Mobile sits at the 82nd percentile, alongside older Radeon Pro parts like the 575 and WX 7100. The Intel part is in a higher performance class entirely.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Arc A730M is the superior performer in every measured benchmark, with a 70%+ lead over the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile in both OpenCL and Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 45,592 places it among workstation-class GPUs like the RTX A2000, while the RTX A500’s 39,568 places it with older Radeon Pro parts. For any user prioritizing raw compute, ray tracing capability, or memory bandwidth, the Arc A730M is the obvious choice.

The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile’s case rests entirely on power efficiency. At 30 W versus 80 W, it draws significantly less power. This makes it a candidate for systems where battery life and thermal limits are paramount. Its 64 tensor cores also provide a feature that Intel does not list, though without benchmark data, its practical benefit remains unquantified.

The choice comes down to priorities. If performance is the goal, the Intel Arc A730M wins by a landslide. If power draw is the critical constraint and the workload is light, the RTX A500 Mobile remains a viable option, but benchmark results indicate it will be substantially slower in any compute or graphics task. The verdict favors Intel for almost all use cases, with NVIDIA only winning on the power efficiency metric.