Intel Arc A770 vs NVIDIA A10M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA A10M compare to the Intel Arc A770 in the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230, which is 23.9% higher than the Intel Arc A770's 109,175. The A10M wins the only head-to-head benchmark listed in the database.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card, and what does that indicate?

A: The A10M has an average benchmark score of 135,230, while the Arc A770 has an average of 68,809. The A10M's average is dominated by its single OpenCL result, whereas the A770's average includes three tests: 2,969 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 109,175 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 94,284 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Which GPU sits in a higher percentile among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA A10M is in the 96th percentile, while the Intel Arc A770 is in the 90th percentile. This places the A10M higher overall in the database's distribution of recorded GPU performance.

Q: Who are the closest rivals to each card according to the database?

A: The A10M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218, 0% delta), AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396, -0.1%), AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774, -0.4%), and AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472, -0.9%). The Arc A770's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000, -0.3%), AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 (68,562, 0.4%), AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870, -1.5%), and NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986, -1.7%).

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 500.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A770 has slightly higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

Q: What is the production status of both GPUs?

A: Both the NVIDIA A10M and Intel Arc A770 are listed as end-of-life. The A10M has no recorded release date, while the A770 was released on 2022-10-11.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA A10M is built on the GA102 chip using the Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The Intel Arc A770 uses the DG2-512 chip with the Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The transistor counts differ notably: the A10M packs 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, while the A770 has 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. This gives the A10M a transistor density of 45.1M per mm², whereas the A770 achieves a higher density of 53.4M per mm², reflecting the more advanced node.

The A10M belongs to the Server Ampere (Axx) generation, while the A770 is part of the Alchemist (Arc 7) generation. The A10M's predecessor is Tesla Turing and its successor is Server Ada. The A770's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage.

Compute resources differ sharply. The A10M has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 224 tensor cores. The A770 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 32 RT cores, with no tensor core count recorded. The A10M's FP32 throughput is 23.44 TFLOPS, while the A770 is lower at 19.66 TFLOPS. However, the A770's FP16 throughput is 39.32 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, whereas the A10M offers 23.44 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning the Intel card has a clear advantage in half-precision workloads.

Memory architecture also diverges. The A10M uses 20 GB of GDDR6 across a 320-bit bus, delivering 500.2 GB/s. The A770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. Despite the smaller bus, the A770's higher effective memory speed (16 Gbps versus 12.5 Gbps) gives it slightly more bandwidth.

Clock behavior separates the two as well. The A10M runs at a base of 975 MHz and boosts to 1635 MHz. The A770 runs at a base of 2100 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz. The Intel chip operates at much higher clocks, which helps its texture and pixel rates: the A770 reaches 614.4 GTexel/s and 307.2 GPixel/s, versus 366.2 GTexel/s and 130.8 GPixel/s for the A10M.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A10M has no display outputs, while the A770 includes 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0. Power and physical design differ: the A10M is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP and an 8-pin EPS connector, while the A770 is dual-slot with a 225 W TDP and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. The suggested PSU is 450 W for the A10M and 550 W for the A770. The A10M is 267 mm long and 112 mm tall; dimensions for the A770 are not recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in intended roles. The NVIDIA A10M is a server-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, a single-slot design, and a modest 150 W TDP. Its 96th percentile ranking and 23.9% lead over the A770 in Geekbench OpenCL make it the stronger choice for compute-focused tasks that rely on FP32 or tensor operations. The presence of 224 tensor cores, absent on the A770, further reinforces this positioning.

The Intel Arc A770, by contrast, is a consumer-facing GPU with full display outputs, a dual-slot design, and a higher 225 W TDP. Its 90th percentile ranking is lower, but its architecture favors different workloads. The A770's FP16 throughput of 39.32 TFLOPS is nearly double its FP32 rate, and its pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s is more than double the A10M's. For graphics-heavy workloads or half-precision compute, the A770 has structural advantages.

Which card to pick depends on the workload. The A10M wins the only shared benchmark, but the A770 wins on bandwidth, texture rate, pixel rate, FP16 throughput, and clock speed. The A10M wins on memory capacity, FP32 throughput, tensor cores, and power efficiency. Users needing a server accelerator with no display output should choose the A10M. Users needing a graphics card with display connectivity and higher raster throughput should choose the A770. The recorded data does not show a single overall winner, only different strengths.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A10M | Intel Arc A770 |

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

| Chip | GA102 | DG2-512 |

| Architecture | Ampere | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Server Ampere (Axx) | Alchemist (Arc 7) |

| Process node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 6 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 21,700 million |

| Die size | 628 mm² | 406 mm² |

| Transistor density | 45.1M / mm² | 53.4M / mm² |

| Base clock | 975 MHz | 2100 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1635 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1563 MHz, 12.5 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 20 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus | 320 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 500.2 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 7168 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 224 | 256 |

| ROPs | 80 | 128 |

| RT cores | 56 | 32 |

| Tensor cores | 224 | Not recorded |

| Pixel rate | 130.8 GPixel/s | 307.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 366.2 GTexel/s | 614.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 23.44 TFLOPS | 19.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1) | 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 225 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | 8-pin EPS | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 550 W |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |

| Release date | Not recorded | 2022-10-11 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database lists only one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230 against the Intel Arc A770's 109,175. The delta is 23.9% in favor of the A10M. This is a substantial margin, placing the A10M well ahead in a general-purpose compute workload that exercises the GPU's raw execution throughput.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret this result. The A10M's OpenCL score sits between the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396) and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218), with deltas of -0.1% and 0% respectively. The A10M is essentially level with those cards in this test. The Arc A770's score of 109,175, by contrast, is closer to its own rival group: the NVIDIA CMP 90HX averages 69,000 (-0.3%), the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 averages 68,562 (0.4%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 averages 69,870 (-1.5%). Note that the A770's average benchmark score of 68,809 is dragged down by its low 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,969, which is not a comparable workload to OpenCL.

The A770 does have additional benchmark data that the A10M lacks. Its Geekbench Vulkan score is 94,284, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2,969. These results cannot be compared directly to the A10M because no corresponding A10M scores exist in the database. However, the Vulkan score being lower than the OpenCL score by about 13.6% suggests the A770's performance varies across APIs.

The wins tally is 1 for the A10M and 0 for the A770 in head-to-head benchmarks. That single win, however, is the only direct comparison available. The A770's advantages in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP16 throughput are derived from its specification sheet, not from a shared benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A10M wins in raw OpenCL compute performance. Its 135,230 score beats the A770's 109,175 by 23.9%. It also wins on memory capacity with 20 GB versus 16 GB, and on FP32 throughput with 23.44 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS. The A10M's 224 tensor cores give it a feature the A770 lacks entirely, which matters for AI inference or training workloads that rely on tensor operations. Its 150 W TDP is 75 W lower than the A770's 225 W, making it more power-efficient despite the higher compute score. The single-slot design and no display outputs indicate a server or datacenter role where density and compute density matter more than graphics output.

The Intel Arc A770 wins in several specification-driven categories. Its memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s edges out the A10M's 500.2 GB/s. Its pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s is more than double the A10M's 130.8 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 614.4 GTexel/s is nearly double the A10M's 366.2 GTexel/s. The A770's FP16 throughput of 39.32 TFLOPS is 67.8% higher than the A10M's 23.44 TFLOPS, making it the better choice for half-precision workloads. Its boost clock of 2400 MHz versus 1635 MHz suggests better responsiveness in latency-sensitive graphics tasks. The A770 also has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0), which the A10M does not have at all.

For use-case selection, the data supports a clear split. Compute-heavy server workloads that favor FP32 or tensor math, such as scientific simulation or machine learning, align with the A10M. Graphics-oriented workloads that favor rasterization, pixel fill, or half-precision compute, such as gaming or content creation, align with the A770. The A770's 2:1 FP16 ratio indicates it is optimized for workloads that can exploit packed half-precision math, while the A10M's 1:1 ratio suggests it treats FP16 and FP32 equally. Neither card is a universal winner, but each has a defined domain where its recorded specifications give it the edge.