Intel Arc A770 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two cards. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A770 posts a score of 109175, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 manages 74179. That gives Intel a 32.1% lead in this compute-oriented workload, a substantial margin that reflects the Arc A770's raw shader throughput advantage.

The tables turn sharply in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here the Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129564 against the Arc A770's 94284, a 37.4% advantage for NVIDIA. This is a bigger margin in absolute terms than Intel's OpenCL win, meaning the Vulkan API clearly favors the older Turing architecture in this comparison.

Looking at the overall average benchmark scores, the NVIDIA card lands at 101872, which places it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc A770 averages 68809, sitting in the 90th percentile. Despite the Arc's dominant OpenCL result, its Vulkan score drags the average down considerably. The gap between the two averages is roughly 33,000 points, which is significant in real-world terms.

The nearest rival data provides context for each card. The Quadro RTX 6000 sits 4.5% above the AMD Radeon RX 7900M and 4.9% above the AMD Radeon Pro VII, while trailing the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo by 4.6% and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X by 5.1%. The Arc A770 is nearly tied with the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at just 0.3% below it, and sits 0.4% above the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25, 1.5% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, and 1.7% below the NVIDIA Quadro P6000.

What this tells us is that the Quadro RTX 6000 occupies a higher tier in the database's overall ranking, while the Arc A770, despite its strong OpenCL showing, lands closer to a different class of hardware. The head-to-head results are the clearest signal: one card wins big in OpenCL, the other wins big in Vulkan, and neither dominates the other across both APIs.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip built on Turing architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It packs 18,600 million transistors into a 754 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc A770 uses the DG2-512 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, also from TSMC but on a 6 nm node. It contains 21,700 million transistors on a smaller 406 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 53.4 million per square millimeter.

The transistor count difference is notable. Intel packs roughly 3,100 million more transistors than NVIDIA, but on a die that is 348 mm² smaller. That is a direct result of the newer 6 nm process versus the older 12 nm node. The Arc A770 is the denser design by a wide margin.

Core configurations differ significantly. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, 96 render output units, 72 ray tracing cores, and 576 tensor cores. The Arc A770 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, but only 32 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores at all. NVIDIA's ray tracing hardware count is more than double Intel's, while Intel has more ROPs and a higher pixel fill rate.

The ROP advantage for Intel is substantial. The Arc A770 delivers 307.2 GPixel/s against the Quadro's 169.9 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors Intel at 614.4 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s. However, the Quadro's 576 tensor cores give it dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the Arc completely lacks, which matters for any workload that can use tensor core acceleration.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the API feature sets are identical on paper. The underlying implementations differ, as the benchmark results demonstrate.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 24 GB GDDR6 memory with a 384 bit bus delivers 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s. NVIDIA's memory bandwidth advantage is 160 GB/s, which is roughly 31% higher. For Vulkan workloads, where the Quadro leads by 37.4%, this bandwidth edge likely plays a role.

The Intel Arc A770 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rating is 19.66 TFLOPS against the Quadro's 16.31 TFLOPS, a 20.5% advantage. Its FP16 rating is 39.32 TFLOPS versus 32.62 TFLOPS, a 20.5% advantage as well. The OpenCL benchmark result aligns with this: Intel leads by 32.1% in that test, which is even larger than the theoretical FP32 gap suggests.

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 wins in ray tracing capability. It has 72 RT cores versus Intel's 32, more than double the count. While the database does not record a specific ray tracing benchmark for either card, the hardware disparity is clear from the specifications. The Quadro also has tensor cores for AI-accelerated workloads, something the Arc A770 cannot offer.

For pixel throughput, the Arc A770 wins decisively. Its 307.2 GPixel/s is nearly double the Quadro's 169.9 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors Intel at 614.4 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s. These metrics suggest the Arc handles fill-rate-bound scenarios better.

The average benchmark score tells a different story. The Quadro RTX 6000's 101872 average is far ahead of the Arc A770's 68809, and the Quadro sits 4 percentage points higher in the percentile ranking (94th versus 90th). When averaged across all recorded tests, the NVIDIA card is the stronger overall performer.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is 12 nm for NVIDIA and 6 nm for Intel. Transistor count is 18,600 million versus 21,700 million. Die size is 754 mm² versus 406 mm². Transistor density is 24.7M per mm² versus 53.4M per mm².

Clock speeds favor Intel substantially. The Arc A770 runs at a 2100 MHz base clock and 2400 MHz boost, while the Quadro RTX 6000 runs at 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. That is a 660 MHz difference in base clock and 630 MHz in boost clock, both favoring Intel. Memory clock is also higher on Intel at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration differs: 24 GB on a 384 bit bus for NVIDIA versus 16 GB on a 256 bit bus for Intel. Bandwidth is 672.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Shading units are 4608 versus 4096. TMUs are 288 versus 256. ROPs are 96 versus 128. RT cores are 72 versus 32. Tensor cores are 576 versus none.

Power draw favors Intel at 225 W TDP versus 260 W for NVIDIA. The suggested PSU is 550 W for Intel and 600 W for NVIDIA. Both use a dual-slot cooler and require one 6-pin plus one 8-pin power connector.

Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for Intel. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C for NVIDIA, versus 1x HDMI 2.1 plus 3x DisplayPort 2.0 for Intel.

Dimensions are recorded only for the Quadro RTX 6000: 267 mm length (10.5 inches) and 111 mm height (4.4 inches). The Arc A770 has no recorded dimensions in the database.

Release timing differs by over four years. The Quadro RTX 6000 launched on 2018-08-12, while the Arc A770 launched on 2022-10-11. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The Arc's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage. Both are end-of-life products.

The launch MSRP for the Quadro RTX 6000 was 6,299 USD. The Arc A770's launch MSRP was 329 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 has 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384 bit bus. The Intel Arc A770 has 512.0 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus.

Q: Why does the Arc A770 win in OpenCL despite the Quadro having a higher average score?

A: The Arc A770's FP32 throughput of 19.66 TFLOPS exceeds the Quadro's 16.31 TFLOPS, and the OpenCL benchmark reflects that with Intel leading by 32.1%. The Quadro's higher average score of 101872 comes from its much stronger Vulkan result of 129564.

Q: Does the Quadro RTX 6000 have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the Quadro RTX 6000 has 576 tensor cores. The Intel Arc A770 has no tensor cores at all.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc A770 has a 225 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 has a 260 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 has 72 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A770 has 32 ray tracing cores, less than half the count.

Q: How do the cards compare in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129564 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 37.4% higher than the Arc A770's 94284.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion. For Vulkan-based workloads and applications that can leverage CUDA-style tensor core acceleration, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 is the stronger choice. Its 37.4% Vulkan lead, 576 tensor cores, 72 RT cores, and 672.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth make it better suited to professional rendering and AI-adjacent tasks. The 24 GB frame buffer is also double the Arc's 16 GB, which matters for large datasets.

For OpenCL-heavy compute workloads, the Intel Arc A770 delivers a 32.1% advantage in the recorded benchmark. Its higher FP32 and FP16 throughput (19.66 TFLOPS and 39.32 TFLOPS respectively) and higher clock speeds (2400 MHz boost versus 1770 MHz) give it a clear edge in raw number crunching. The 6 nm process node also makes it the more efficient design per transistor, though the TDP difference of 35 W is modest.

The average benchmark scores favor NVIDIA decisively. A 101872 average versus 68809 is a 48% gap that cannot be ignored. The percentile ranking of 94th versus 90th confirms that the Quadro RTX 6000 sits in a higher performance tier overall, despite losing the OpenCL test.

The practical advice is simple. If your primary workloads run on Vulkan or need tensor cores, pick the Quadro RTX 6000. If your workloads are OpenCL-heavy and you want maximum FP32 throughput, the Arc A770 is the better value. For mixed workloads that span both APIs, the Quadro RTX 6000's higher average score suggests it is the safer all-around choice. The 4.5% delta versus the closest rival shows the Quadro RTX 6000 is competitive with other high-end rivals in the 94th percentile, and the Arc A770's 0.3% gap to the CMP 90HX shows it is similarly well-positioned in the 90th percentile. Choose based on your API requirements, not brand loyalty.