Intel Arc A770 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and Intel Arc A770 represent two very different generations of GPU design, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear generational shift: the older Pascal-based Quadro, built for professional workstations, faces a newer Xe-HPG-based Arc card that targets the consumer desktop market. While both occupy the 90th percentile of all GPUs, their benchmark scores, specifications, and intended workloads diverge significantly. This analysis walks through the architectural differences, performance data, and use-case scenarios to determine which card excels where.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has an average benchmark score of 69986, while the Intel Arc A770 scores 68809. The Quadro is roughly 1.7% ahead of the Arc A770 according to the deltaPct values in the nearestRivals data.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The Intel Arc A770 wins decisively, scoring 109175 versus the Quadro P6000’s 66382. This represents a 39.2% advantage for the Arc A770, according to the head-to-head benchmark deltaPct.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A770 provides 512.0 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, which is higher than the Quadro P6000’s 432.8 GB/s over a 384-bit bus. The Arc achieves this with GDDR6 memory running at 16 Gbps effective, while the Quadro uses GDDR5X at 9 Gbps effective.

Q: What are the transistor counts of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A770 has 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. This gives the Arc a much higher transistor density of 53.4M per mm² compared to the Quadro’s 25.1M per mm².

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. The Intel Arc A770 includes 32 dedicated RT cores as part of its Xe-HPG architecture. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000, based on Pascal, has no RT cores listed in the data, indicating it lacks dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc A770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is substantially higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P6000’s 12.63 TFLOPS. The Arc also has a significant FP16 advantage, offering 39.32 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio versus the Quadro’s 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous, reflecting their different release timelines and target markets. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 25.1M per mm². Pascal was designed for professional workloads, emphasizing raw FP32 throughput and memory capacity over newer features like ray tracing or tensor operations.

The Intel Arc A770, in contrast, uses the DG2-512 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, built on TSMC’s 6 nm process. It packs 21,700 million transistors into a smaller 406 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 53.4M per mm². Xe-HPG is a modern gaming-oriented architecture that includes 32 RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The Quadro P6000 has no RT cores or tensor cores listed, confirming its older design. The Arc also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Memory technology differs as well. The Quadro uses 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, while the Arc uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the Arc’s faster 16 Gbps effective memory speed gives it higher total bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s versus the Quadro’s 432.8 GB/s. The process node advantage is clear: the Arc’s 6 nm node allows nearly double the transistor density, enabling more compute units and features in a smaller physical footprint.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A770 dominates in compute-heavy and modern workload scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 19.66 TFLOPS is roughly 56% higher than the Quadro P6000’s 12.63 TFLOPS, making it the stronger choice for tasks that scale with raw shader performance. The Arc also wins decisively in both available benchmarks: 109175 versus 66382 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 94284 versus 73590 in Geekbench Vulkan. For applications that leverage Vulkan or OpenCL, the Arc offers a clear performance advantage. Additionally, the Arc’s 32 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing capability that the Quadro lacks entirely, which is essential for modern gaming or real-time rendering workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 wins in memory capacity and professional ecosystem integration. Its 24 GB of VRAM exceeds the Arc’s 16 GB, which is critical for large datasets, complex 3D scenes, or multi-application workflows. The Quadro also uses a 384-bit memory bus, which at the same bandwidth level provides more memory parallelism. While the Arc has higher total bandwidth, the Quadro’s larger frame buffer is a distinct advantage for workloads that exceed 16 GB. The Quadro also has a higher average benchmark score overall (69986 versus 68809), indicating more consistent performance across its benchmark suite. For professional applications that rely on OpenGL or specific workstation drivers, the Quadro’s Pascal architecture and 1x DVI plus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs may be preferable.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two GPUs:

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P6000 | Intel Arc A770 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Xe-HPG |

| 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 | 1506 MHz | 2100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1645 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 432.8 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 240 | 256 |

| ROPs | 96 | 128 |

| RT Cores | None | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 12.63 TFLOPS | 19.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) | 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 157.9 GPixel/s | 307.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 394.8 GTexel/s | 614.4 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 250 W | 225 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 550 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |

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

| Release Date | 2016-09-30 | 2022-10-11 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a one-sided contest in synthetic workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A770 scores 109175 against the Quadro P6000’s 66382. This is a 39.2% margin in favor of the Arc, indicating a massive gap in general-purpose compute performance. The Arc’s higher shading unit count (4096 versus 3840) and much higher clock speeds (2400 MHz boost versus 1645 MHz) contribute to this result.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc again wins, scoring 94284 versus the Quadro’s 73590. The deltaPct of -21.9% from the Quadro’s perspective means the Arc is 21.9% faster. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the Arc’s newer architecture with DirectX 12 Ultimate support likely provides better driver optimization for this workload. The Quadro’s Pascal architecture, released in 2016, was not designed with Vulkan’s modern feature set in mind.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The Quadro P6000 has an average score of 69986, while the Arc A770 sits at 68809. This suggests that outside the two Geekbench tests, the Quadro performs better in other benchmarks not listed in the head-to-head table. The Quadro’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70140, -0.2% delta), while the Arc’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000, -0.3% delta). Both cards sit near the 90th percentile of all GPUs, but the Quadro’s slightly higher average score indicates broader consistency across a wider range of tests.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Arc A770 is the clear winner for compute-intensive and modern API workloads. Its 19.66 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 39.32 TFLOPS FP16 performance, and 32 RT cores make it a far more capable card for tasks like real-time rendering, machine learning inference (via FP16), or any workload that uses Vulkan or OpenCL. The Arc’s victory in Geekbench OpenCL by 39.2% and Geekbench Vulkan by 21.9% is decisive, and its higher pixel rate (307.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (614.4 GTexel/s) confirm its superiority in fill-rate-bound scenarios. For gamers or developers targeting modern APIs, the Arc A770 is the obvious choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000, however, retains value in specific professional scenarios. Its 24 GB of VRAM is 50% larger than the Arc’s 16 GB, making it the better option for workloads that require massive frame buffers, such as large-scale 3D rendering, scientific visualization, or running multiple virtual machines. The Quadro’s higher average benchmark score (69986 versus 68809) also suggests it performs better in non-Geekbench tests, though the data does not specify which. Its PCIe 3.0 interface and DVI output may suit legacy workstation environments. The Quadro’s end-of-life status and 2016 release date, however, mean it lacks modern features like ray tracing and PCIe 4.0 support.

In summary: pick the Intel Arc A770 for raw compute performance, modern API support, and ray tracing. Pick the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 for memory capacity, legacy compatibility, and slightly better overall average benchmark scores. The data does not support a single universal winner; the choice depends entirely on workload priorities.