Intel Arc A770 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc A770 compare to the NVIDIA RTX A2000 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The Intel Arc A770 scores 2969, while the NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 1345. This gives the Arc A770 a 120.7% advantage in that specific benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score across the recorded database?

A: The Intel Arc A770 has an average benchmark score of 68809, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has an average score of 46043, placing it in the 85th percentile.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc A770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the NVIDIA RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. The A770 also delivers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 288.0 GB/s for the A2000.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Arc A770 boosts up to 2400 MHz, whereas the NVIDIA RTX A2000 boosts up to 1200 MHz. The A770's base clock is 2100 MHz, while the A2000's base clock is 562 MHz.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both the Intel Arc A770 and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

Q: Which GPU offers more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc A770 has 4096 shading units and 32 RT cores. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has 3328 shading units and 26 RT cores. The A2000 does include 104 tensor cores, while the A770's tensor core count is not recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A770 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, using the DG2-512 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation (Arc 7). The NVIDIA RTX A2000 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA106 chip, classified under Workstation Ampere (Ax000). These are fundamentally different designs: Intel targets a unified gaming and compute pipeline, while NVIDIA's Ampere is optimized for professional workstation tasks with dedicated tensor cores.

The manufacturing processes differ significantly. The Arc A770 is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4 million per mm². The RTX A2000 uses an 8 nm process at Samsung, with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, resulting in 43.5 million per mm². The A770's newer process gives it a density advantage, though the A2000's smaller die means less total silicon.

The memory subsystems are starkly different. The Arc A770 carries 16 GB of GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus, achieving 512.0 GB/s. The RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s. This is a 2.67x capacity advantage for Intel and a 1.78x bandwidth advantage. For large datasets or high-resolution textures, the A770's memory headroom is substantial.

Compute resources also diverge. The Arc A770 has 256 texture mapping units and 128 render output units, versus 104 TMUs and 48 ROPs on the A2000. The A770's pixel rate is 307.2 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s for the A2000, and its texture rate is 614.4 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. The floating-point throughput tells a similar story: 19.66 TFLOPS FP32 for Intel, 7.987 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. However, the A2000 offers 104 tensor cores, which the A770 lacks entirely, making the NVIDIA card more suited for AI inference workloads that rely on tensor operations.

Power and physical design differ as well. The A770 has a TDP of 225 W and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The A2000 has a 70 W TDP, needs no external power connectors, and only requires a 250 W PSU. The A2000 is also shorter at 167 mm (6.6 inches) versus the A770's unspecified length, and both are dual-slot cards. Display outputs differ: the A770 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the A2000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records three head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Intel Arc A770 wins all three. The largest margin is in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, a demanding modern rasterization test. The A770 scores 2969 against the A2000's 1345, a 120.7% delta. This is a decisive victory, indicating that the A770's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth translate directly into raw rasterization performance.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the A770 posts 109175 points versus 67695 for the A2000, a 61.3% advantage. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and the gap reflects the A770's 19.66 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the A2000's 7.987 TFLOPS. The A770 also has more than double the texture and pixel fill rates, which helps in compute workloads that stress memory and texture operations.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a narrower but still substantial margin: 94284 for the A770 versus 69089 for the A2000, a 36.5% delta. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can benefit from efficient driver scheduling and hardware design. The A2000's Ampere architecture with tensor cores may offer some advantages in specific Vulkan compute paths, but the overall score still favors Intel.

The recorded wins stand at 3 for the Intel Arc A770 and 0 for the NVIDIA RTX A2000. However, the average benchmark score context matters: the A770's 68809 average is 0.3% below the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000) and 0.4% above the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 (68562). The A2000's 46043 average sits 0.2% above the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45972) and 1% below the Intel Arc A730M (45592). These rival comparisons show that each card is competitive within its own performance tier, but the A770 operates in a higher tier overall.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A770 | NVIDIA RTX A2000 |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ampere |

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

| Transistors | 21,700 million | 12,000 million |

| Die Size | 406 mm² | 276 mm² |

| Memory Size | 16 GB GDDR6 | 6 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 3328 |

| TMUs | 256 | 104 |

| ROPs | 128 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 32 | 26 |

| Tensor Cores | None recorded | 104 |

| FP32 Performance | 19.66 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1) | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Base Clock | 2100 MHz | 562 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| TDP | 225 W | 70 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

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

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 167 mm (6.6 in) length, 69 mm (2.7 in) height |

| Release Date | 2022-10-11 | 2021-08-09 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Battlemage | Workstation Ada |

The FP16 numbers deserve attention. The A770 delivers 39.32 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves FP32 throughput to double FP16. The A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, so its FP16 matches FP32. For workloads that rely on FP16, such as certain machine learning inference passes, the A770's peak is much higher, though the A2000's tensor cores may offer specialized acceleration that the raw FP16 figure does not capture.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A770 is the clear winner for raw graphics performance. Its 120.7% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 61.3% lead in OpenCL make it the stronger choice for gaming, high-resolution rendering, and compute-heavy tasks that use standard FP32 pipelines. The 16 GB memory capacity and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth are significant for large textures, complex scenes, or datasets that do not fit in 6 GB. The A770 also has a 90th percentile ranking across all GPUs, versus 85th for the A2000, indicating it sits higher in the overall performance distribution.

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins in efficiency and specialized features. Its 70 W TDP is less than one-third of the A770's 225 W, and it requires no external power connectors, making it ideal for compact workstations or systems with limited power budgets. The 250 W suggested PSU means it can slot into existing builds without upgrades. The 104 tensor cores give it a clear advantage for AI and deep learning tasks that leverage Tensor Core acceleration, a capability the A770 lacks entirely. The A2000's 6 GB memory is smaller, but for professional applications like CAD, simulation, or video editing that are optimized for NVIDIA's CUDA ecosystem, the A2000 may provide better software compatibility despite lower raw scores.

The A2000 also offers a shorter physical footprint at 167 mm, which is helpful for small form factor builds. Its four mini-DisplayPort outputs allow multi-monitor professional setups, whereas the A770's mix of HDMI and DisplayPort 2.0 may be less convenient for certain workstation configurations. In the specific head-to-head benchmarks recorded, the A770 wins all three, but the A2000's tensor cores and lower power draw mean it remains competitive for workloads outside those tests. The data suggests a straightforward split: choose the A770 for maximum performance and memory, or the A2000 for efficiency, AI acceleration, and NVIDIA's professional software stack.