Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The Intel Arc A750 and NVIDIA Quadro M4000M occupy vastly different eras of GPU design, with the former representing Intel’s modern discrete architecture and the latter a legacy mobile workstation part. The benchmark data available for direct comparison shows a decisive, though not unexpected, outcome, given their respective release dates and target markets. The Arc A750 leads in both shared tests, but the magnitude of that lead and the architectural context behind it are the key takeaways for any analyst.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two cards is limited to two compute-oriented workloads, yet the results are unambiguous. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A750 scores 98,554 points against the Quadro M4000M’s 19,989 points. This represents a delta of 393% in favor of the Intel card. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in raw compute throughput, reflecting the massive difference in shading units (3584 vs. 1280) and peak FP32 performance (17.20 TFLOPS vs. 2.593 TFLOPS).

The Vulkan results follow a similar pattern, though the margin is slightly narrower. The Arc A750 achieves 85,631 points, while the Quadro M4000M manages 20,971 points. The delta here is 308.3% in favor of Intel. While the Quadro’s Vulkan score is proportionally higher than its OpenCL score relative to the Arc, it still trails by a factor of roughly four. This suggests that while the Maxwell architecture can execute Vulkan workloads with reasonable efficiency on a per-core basis, it is overwhelmingly outmatched by the sheer scale of the Arc A750’s Xe-HPG architecture.

The average benchmark score for the Arc A750 is 20,582, placing it at the 66th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M4000M’s average score is 20,480, putting it at the 65th percentile. This near-identical aggregate performance is striking when juxtaposed with the head-to-head results. The explanation lies in the benchmark composition: the Arc A750’s average is dragged down by its low Passmark DirectX 9 (181) and DirectX 10 (65) scores, while the Quadro only has two Geekbench entries in its dataset. The head-to-head tests show the Arc’s dominance in modern APIs, but the overall percentile ranking shows that in legacy or mixed workloads, the two cards can be surprisingly close in aggregate terms.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the Arc A750, the data shows it is positioned in a tight cluster. The AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20,662 (0.4% higher), the Intel Arc B570 scores 20,556 (0.1% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20,534 (0.2% lower). The Quadro M4000M sits just below at 20,480, with a delta of -0.5% relative to the Arc. This means that despite the massive head-to-head win in Geekbench, the overall average places the Arc A750 only 0.5% ahead of the Quadro. This is a critical nuance: the Arc wins decisively where they overlap, but the Quadro’s aggregate profile is not as far behind as the head-to-head numbers alone would suggest.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal in compute-heavy, modern workloads: the Intel Arc A750 is the superior performer. In both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, it more than triples the Quadro M4000M’s output. Any user whose primary tasks rely on general-purpose GPU compute or modern graphics APIs will see a massive benefit from the Intel card. The Arc A750’s 17.20 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Quadro’s 2.593 TFLOPS is a 6.6x raw theoretical advantage, which the 393% and 308% real-world deltas reflect.

However, the verdict is not universally simple. The Quadro M4000M, while older and slower, is a mobile MXM module with a 100 W TDP, versus the Arc A750’s 225 W desktop card. The Quadro’s power efficiency is not directly comparable in the data, but its form factor and power connector requirements (“None” for the Quadro, “1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin” for the Arc) imply fundamentally different deployment scenarios. The Quadro is designed for portable workstations, while the Arc A750 is a desktop part requiring a 550 W suggested PSU.

For a pure performance buy, the Arc A750 wins every benchmark where both are present. For a legacy mobile workstation upgrade, the Quadro M4000M is the only option that fits the MXM slot. The data does not suggest the Quadro is competitive; it suggests that its niche is mobility, not performance. The Arc A750’s 66th percentile ranking versus the Quadro’s 65th is a statistical tie, but that tie is misleading—it is the result of the Arc’s poor legacy DirectX performance dragging down an otherwise dominant modern score.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Arc A750 Wins: The Arc A750 wins both head-to-head tests by enormous margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 393% faster, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it is 308.3% faster. This indicates a clear victory in any application leveraging OpenCL or Vulkan compute, such as rendering, scientific simulation, or modern game engines. The card’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth also provides a significant data throughput advantage over the Quadro’s 4 GB of GDDR5 at 160.4 GB/s, which would be beneficial for texture-heavy workloads. The Arc also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (12_1), giving it access to more advanced feature sets like ray tracing, evidenced by its 28 dedicated RT cores.

NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Wins: The Quadro M4000M does not win any head-to-head benchmark in this dataset. Its victory condition is purely contextual. It is an MXM module, making it the only viable choice for upgrading a laptop with that form factor. Its 100 W TDP is significantly lower than the Arc’s 225 W, and it requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for systems where power delivery is constrained. In terms of legacy API performance, the Arc A750’s Passmark DirectX 9 score of 181 is notably low, and while the Quadro’s DirectX 9 score is not listed, its older architecture is generally better optimized for such legacy paths. The Quadro’s 65th percentile ranking, nearly identical to the Arc’s 66th, shows that in aggregate, it holds its own in a mixed workload environment.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A750 in OpenCL?

A: The Arc A750 scores 98,554 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 393% higher than the Quadro M4000M’s 19,989 score.

Q: Does the Quadro M4000M have any chance in Vulkan?

A: No, the Arc A750 leads with 85,631 points versus 20,971 for the Quadro, a delta of 308.3%. The Quadro’s Vulkan support is present (API version 1.4), but the hardware is too limited to compete.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A750 has a 512.0 GB/s bandwidth from its 256-bit GDDR6 bus, while the Quadro M4000M has 160.4 GB/s from its 256-bit GDDR5 bus. The Arc’s bandwidth is 3.2 times higher.

Q: Are these cards in the same performance tier?

A: Their average benchmark scores are very close (20,582 for the Arc vs. 20,480 for the Quadro), placing them at the 66th and 65th percentiles, respectively. However, the head-to-head tests show the Arc is dramatically faster in modern compute, suggesting the average is skewed by legacy tests.

Q: What is the difference in power requirements?

A: The Arc A750 has a 225 W TDP and requires a 550 W power supply along with a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector. The Quadro M4000M has a 100 W TDP and uses no external power connectors, functioning as an MXM module.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A750 features 28 dedicated RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing. The Quadro M4000M has no RT cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures separated by seven years of process technology and design philosophy. The Intel Arc A750 uses the DG2-512 chip with the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. This process packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². The Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip with the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This older node holds 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, for a density of just 13.1M per mm².

The core configurations diverge wildly. The Arc A750 has 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 112 ROPs. The Quadro M4000M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This results in a pixel rate of 268.8 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 537.6 GTexel/s for the Intel card, versus 64.83 GPixel/s and 81.04 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card. The Arc also has 28 RT cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely, and supports FP16 compute at 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability.

Clocks and memory are equally distinct. The Arc A750 runs at a base clock of 2050 MHz with a boost of 2400 MHz, while the Quadro runs at 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost. The Intel card’s memory operates at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) with 8 GB GDDR6, while the Quadro’s memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) with 4 GB GDDR5. The bus interface also differs: the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x16, whereas the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Arc features modern display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0), while the Quadro’s outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in. The Arc A750 was released in 2022 with a launch MSRP of 289 USD, while the Quadro M4000M was released in 2015 with no launch MSRP listed. Both are now end-of-life products.