Intel Arc A770 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation records an average benchmark score of 135,218, while the Intel Arc A770 averages 68,809. That places the NVIDIA part at the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database, compared to the 90th percentile for the Intel part.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the shared OpenCL benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 4000 Ada scores 146,593 against 109,175 for the Arc A770, a 34.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A770 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. Across the two recorded head-to-head tests, the RTX 4000 Ada wins both. The Intel card records zero wins in the database comparison.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 360.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card carries the higher transistor count?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada packs 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Arc A770 packs 21,700 million transistors on a larger 406 mm² die.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada is listed as Active, while the Arc A770 is marked End-of-life. The Intel card has a recorded launch MSRP of 329 USD; the NVIDIA card has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture using the AD104 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The Intel Arc A770 uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-512 chip, also from TSMC but on a 6 nm node. The process difference is reflected in transistor density: the NVIDIA die achieves 121.8 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Intel die manages 53.4 million per square millimeter, despite the Intel chip being physically larger at 406 mm² versus 294 mm².

The RTX 4000 Ada belongs to the Workstation Ada generation, with its predecessor listed as Workstation Ampere and successor as Blackwell PRO W. The Arc A770 is part of the Alchemist (Arc 7) generation, succeeding Xe Graphics and preceding Battlemage.

Shader resources differ substantially. The NVIDIA card carries 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, along with 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The Intel card has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, with 32 ray tracing cores and no tensor core count recorded in the database. The Intel card has a higher texture rate (614.4 GTexel/s versus 417.6 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (307.2 GPixel/s versus 139.2 GPixel/s), but the NVIDIA card has the higher FP32 throughput at 26.73 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS.

FP16 performance reveals a design divergence. The NVIDIA card runs FP16 at 26.73 TFLOPS, a 1:1 ratio with its FP32 throughput. The Intel card reaches 39.32 TFLOPS FP16, a 2:1 ratio, indicating a shader design that processes half-precision at double rate.

Clock behavior also differs. The Arc A770 has both a higher base clock (2100 MHz versus 1500 MHz) and a higher boost clock (2400 MHz versus 2175 MHz). Memory clocks are closer in effective terms: 18 Gbps effective for NVIDIA versus 16 Gbps effective for Intel.

Power and physical design separate the two clearly. The RTX 4000 Ada is rated at 130 W TDP with a suggested 300 W PSU, is single-slot, and uses a single 16-pin connector. The Arc A770 is rated at 225 W TDP with a suggested 550 W PSU, is dual-slot, and requires one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector.

Display outputs differ as well. The NVIDIA card offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Intel card offers one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both use PCIe 4.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data gives the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins in both shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 34.3%. In Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 31.3%. These are compute-oriented workloads, and the NVIDIA card holds a decisive edge in both the OpenCL and Vulkan APIs.

The Intel Arc A770 does not win any recorded head-to-head benchmark. However, the database lists several areas where the Intel part is structurally stronger, even if no benchmark in the pack directly measures them. The Arc A770 has a wider 256-bit memory bus and higher memory bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s, which can favor bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Its texture rate of 614.4 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s are both higher than the NVIDIA card's figures, suggesting the Intel part has raw fill-rate hardware that could matter in certain rendering paths. Its FP16 throughput of 39.32 TFLOPS is also higher, assuming a workload can use the 2:1 rate.

The RTX 4000 Ada wins on compute throughput in FP32, on tensor core availability, and on transistor density. Its 20 GB memory capacity exceeds the Arc A770's 16 GB, which matters for large datasets. Its lower TDP of 130 W versus 225 W and single-slot design give it an efficiency and space advantage that the Intel card cannot match.

The production status also separates the two: the RTX 4000 Ada is Active, while the Arc A770 is End-of-life, so the NVIDIA card is the one with ongoing availability in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category.

• Chip and architecture: AD104 on Ada Lovelace versus DG2-512 on Xe-HPG.
• Process node: 5 nm versus 6 nm, both TSMC.
• Transistors: 35,800 million versus 21,700 million.
• Die size: 294 mm² versus 406 mm².
• Transistor density: 121.8M / mm² versus 53.4M / mm².
• Base clock: 1500 MHz versus 2100 MHz.
• Boost clock: 2175 MHz versus 2400 MHz.
• Memory clock: 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective versus 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.
• Memory size: 20 GB versus 16 GB, both GDDR6.
• Memory bus: 160-bit versus 256-bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 360.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s.
• Shading units: 6,144 versus 4,096.
• TMUs: 192 versus 256.
• ROPs: 64 versus 128.
• RT cores: 48 versus 32.
• Tensor cores: 192 versus none recorded.
• Pixel rate: 139.2 GPixel/s versus 307.2 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 417.6 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 26.73 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS.
• FP16: 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: 130 W versus 225 W.
• Slot width: Single-slot versus dual-slot.
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus 550 W.
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.1 + 3x DisplayPort 2.0.
• Dimensions: 245 mm length, 112 mm height for NVIDIA; no dimensions recorded for Intel.
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life.
• Release date: 2023-08-08 versus 2022-10-11.
• Launch MSRP: none recorded versus 329 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons between these cards, and both go to the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4000 Ada scores 146,593 against 109,175 for the Arc A770. The 34.3% delta is the largest margin recorded between the two. This test exercises general-purpose compute across the GPU, and the NVIDIA card's higher FP32 throughput (26.73 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS) and tensor core resources likely contribute to the gap.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 4000 Ada scores 123,842 against 94,284 for the Arc A770, a 31.3% advantage. The margin narrows slightly compared to OpenCL, but the NVIDIA card still leads by a wide margin in the Vulkan API as well.

The Intel card's overall average benchmark score of 68,809 is dragged down by its lack of a dedicated average across the same tests, but the head-to-head data is unambiguous: two tests, two NVIDIA wins, with deltas of 34.3% and 31.3%.

For context, the RTX 4000 Ada's nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA A10M (average score 135,230, delta 0%), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396, -0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774, -0.4%), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472, -0.9%). Its average benchmark score of 135,218 sits within 0.9% of all four, indicating the RTX 4000 Ada is tightly clustered with the top workstation GPUs in the database.

The Arc A770's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000, -0.3%), the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 (68,562, 0.4%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870, -1.5%), and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986, -1.7%). Its average of 68,809 places it in a lower performance tier, roughly half the average score of the NVIDIA card.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the faster card by every recorded benchmark measure. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 34.3% and Geekbench Vulkan by 31.3%. It has a higher FP32 compute rate, more shading units, tensor cores, and a 95th percentile rank versus the Arc A770's 90th percentile. It also does this at a lower TDP (130 W versus 225 W) and in a single-slot form factor.

The Intel Arc A770 is a different class of product. Its average benchmark score of 68,809 places it alongside the NVIDIA CMP 90HX, AMD Radeon Instinct MI25, AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, and NVIDIA Quadro P6000, all within 1.7% of each other. It offers a wider memory bus, higher memory bandwidth, higher pixel and texture rates, and higher FP16 throughput, but none of those advantages translate into a win in the recorded head-to-head tests.

Buyers who need maximum compute performance, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and an active production card should choose the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation. Its 20 GB of memory and 26.73 TFLOPS FP32 make it the stronger workstation part in the database.

Buyers who prioritize memory bandwidth, fill rate, or FP16 throughput might consider the Arc A770, but the benchmark record shows it trailing by over 30% in both shared tests. Its End-of-life status and higher power draw further weaken its case. The recorded data gives no scenario where the Intel card wins a direct comparison.