Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA Tesla P40 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits the head-to-head results evenly, with each product taking one benchmark win. The NVIDIA Tesla P40 secures its victory in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 68,172 against the Intel Arc A730M's 64,693, a 5.4% advantage. This result suggests the Pascal architecture retains a measurable edge in Vulkan compute workloads, likely due to driver maturity and the specific scheduling characteristics of the GP102 chip.

The Intel Arc A730M counters in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it posts 70,352 versus the Tesla P40's 62,017, a substantial 11.8% lead. This is the larger margin of the two wins, indicating that the Xe-HPG architecture's compute pipelines are particularly well-suited to OpenCL's execution model. The A730M's higher FP32 throughput, 12.60 TFLOPS against 11.76 TFLOPS, aligns with this outcome, though the raw numbers alone do not fully explain the margin.

Looking beyond the direct comparison, the two products occupy different performance tiers in the broader database. The Tesla P40 sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 65,095. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212, 1.4% slower) and the AMD Radeon VII (66,004, 1.4% faster), placing it in a tightly contested workstation-class band. The Arc A730M, by contrast, is at the 84th percentile with an average score of 45,592, a figure dragged down by its additional 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1,732, which is not a compute-heavy workload. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45,384, 0.5% slower) and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972, 0.8% faster), cluster around a lower average, indicating that the A730M's compute strength does not translate into an equally strong overall benchmark profile.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The Tesla P40 is the stronger choice for Vulkan-based rendering or compute pipelines, while the Arc A730M dominates OpenCL-heavy workloads. For mixed or API-agnostic tasks, the P40's higher percentile ranking and more consistent average score suggest broader applicability, despite the A730M's single-test victory.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies from different eras. The Tesla P40 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, using the GP102 chip manufactured on a 16 nm TSMC process. The die measures 471 mm² and packs 11,800 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. This is a large, power-hungry design optimized for datacenter inference and professional compute, with a 250 W TDP and dual-slot cooling.

The Arc A730M is Intel's mobile Alchemist part, based on the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-512 chip. It uses a more advanced 6 nm TSMC process, allowing 21,700 million transistors on a smaller 406 mm² die. The transistor density jumps to 53.4 million per square millimeter, more than double the P40's figure. This density advantage enables the A730M to deliver higher raw compute within an 80 W TDP, a fraction of the P40's power draw. The A730M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dedicated slot width, while the P40 is a dual-slot card with an 8-pin EPS power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The P40 carries 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 347.1 GB/s of bandwidth at 7.2 Gbps effective. The A730M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 336.0 GB/s at 14 Gbps effective. The P40's advantage in capacity (double) is partially offset by the A730M's newer memory technology, though the bandwidth gap is only 3.3%.

Compute resources are distributed differently. The P40 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor cores. The A730M has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but adds 24 ray tracing cores. The P40's higher shader count does not translate into higher FP32 throughput, as the A730M's 12.60 TFLOPS edges out the P40's 11.76 TFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is stark: the P40 manages only 183.7 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the A730M delivers 25.19 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a 137-fold difference that highlights the Pascal architecture's near-absence of half-precision support.

API support also diverges. The P40 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A730M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), the same OpenGL and Vulkan versions, plus hardware ray tracing. The P40 has no display outputs, reflecting its server role, while the A730M's outputs are portable device dependent. The P40 uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the A730M uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded benchmarks paint a clear picture of API-specific performance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A730M scores 70,352 against the NVIDIA Tesla P40's 62,017, a delta of 11.8% in Intel's favor. This is the decisive compute win. The A730M's FP32 rate of 12.60 TFLOPS exceeds the P40's 11.76 TFLOPS by roughly 7%, but the benchmark margin is nearly double that, suggesting that memory latency, driver scheduling, or occupancy patterns favor the Intel part in this workload. The A730M's 14 Gbps GDDR6 memory, while narrower (192-bit vs 384-bit), may offer lower latency per transaction, which can matter in OpenCL's kernel launch overhead.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA Tesla P40 reverses the outcome with a score of 68,172 against 64,693, a 5.4% advantage. This is a smaller margin than the OpenCL gap, but it is consistent across the P40's known strengths in driver-level Vulkan command processing. The P40's 384-bit memory bus and larger 24 GB frame buffer may reduce data movement bottlenecks in Vulkan's explicit memory management, even though the raw bandwidth (347.1 GB/s vs 336.0 GB/s) is only 3.3% higher. The P40's 96 ROPs match the A730M's 96 ROPs, so rasterization-bound segments should perform similarly, but compute dispatch appears to favor NVIDIA here.

The average benchmark scores contextualize these results. The P40's average is 65,095, while the A730M's is 45,592. This 42.8% gap is driven by the A730M's inclusion of a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,732, which is a graphics-focused test where the mobile Intel part likely struggles due to its lower TDP and mobile-oriented design. The P40 has no equivalent 3DMark result, so its average reflects only the two Geekbench tests. When comparing the two on the shared Geekbench tests alone, the A730M leads by 11.8% in OpenCL, and the P40 leads by 5.4% in Vulkan, resulting in a 1-1 split. The percentile rankings (89th for P40, 84th for A730M) reflect the P40's stronger overall standing in the full database, which includes many more graphics-oriented benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A730M wins decisively, scoring 70,352 versus the NVIDIA Tesla P40's 62,017, an 11.8% advantage.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla P40 wins, scoring 68,172 against the Intel Arc A730M's 64,693, a 5.4% margin.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Tesla P40 has an average score of 65,095, while the Arc A730M averages 45,592. The P40 ranks at the 89th percentile of all GPUs, the A730M at the 84th.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Tesla P40 has 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the Arc A730M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. Bandwidth is similar at 347.1 GB/s for the P40 and 336.0 GB/s for the A730M.

Q: Does the Arc A730M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A730M includes 24 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Tesla P40 has no ray tracing cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How do their FP16 capabilities differ?

A: The Arc A730M delivers 25.19 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the Tesla P40 manages only 183.7 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64 ratio), a difference of over 137 times.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla P40 | Intel Arc A730M |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Tesla Pascal (Pxx) | Alchemist (Arc 7 Mobile) |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 21,700 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 406 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 53.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1303 MHz | 1100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1808 MHz, 7.2 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 347.1 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 240 | 192 |

| ROPs | 96 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 147.0 GPixel/s | 196.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 367.4 GTexel/s | 393.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 11.76 TFLOPS | 12.60 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 183.7 GFLOPS (1:64) | 25.19 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 80 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Release Date | 2016-09-12 | Not recorded |

| Launch MSRP | 5,699 USD | Not recorded |

The specification table shows a generational leap in process technology and feature set. The A730M's 6 nm node enables more than twice the transistor density and higher clocks (2050 MHz boost vs 1531 MHz) while consuming less than a third of the power (80 W vs 250 W). The P40 counters with double the memory capacity and a wider bus, though the A730M's GDDR6 at 14 Gbps nearly closes the bandwidth gap. The P40's production status is end-of-life, as is the A730M's, but the P40 has a recorded predecessor (Tesla Maxwell) and successor (Tesla Volta), while the A730M has neither in the database. The P40's launch MSRP is 5,699 USD, while the A730M has no recorded launch price.