Intel Arc A770M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and Intel Arc A770M are two graphics processors separated by nearly a decade of design philosophy, yet the benchmark data reveals a clear modern victor. The Intel Arc A770M dominates the shared compute workloads, while the Quadro K5200 retains a narrow edge in overall percentile ranking among all GPUs. This analysis breaks down where each card stands based solely on the provided specifications and test results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 posts an average benchmark score of 19,602, while the Intel Arc A770M averages 18,383. Despite this, the Arc A770M wins both head-to-head compute tests by a wide margin.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL compute?

A: The Intel Arc A770M scores 89,494 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 19,024 for the Quadro K5200. The delta is -78.7%, meaning the Arc A770M is roughly 4.7 times faster in this workload.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A770M offers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 provides 192.3 GB/s with 8 GB of GDDR5. The Arc A770M has over 2.6 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Arc A770M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The Intel Arc A770M contains 21,700 million transistors on a 6 nm process, compared to 7,080 million transistors on the Quadro K5200’s 28 nm node. The Arc A770M has roughly three times the transistor count.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference?

A: The Intel Arc A770M achieves 262.4 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 manages 37.01 GPixel/s. The Arc A770M delivers over 7 times the pixel throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A770M is the clear winner in raw compute and modern rendering features. It takes both head-to-head benchmark victories: Geekbench OpenCL (89,494 vs 19,024) and Geekbench Vulkan (74,422 vs 20,180). Its FP32 performance of 16.79 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS, a 4.7x advantage. The Arc A770M also leads in texture rate (524.8 GTexel/s vs 148.0 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (262.4 GPixel/s vs 37.01 GPixel/s). With 32 ray tracing cores, the Arc A770M is equipped for workloads the Kepler-based Quadro cannot touch.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins in one specific metric: overall percentile ranking. It sits at the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A770M ranks at the 62nd. Its average benchmark score of 19,602 is also higher than the Arc A770M’s 18,383. The Quadro K5200’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (score 19,765, delta -0.8%) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (score 19,410, delta +1%). This suggests the Quadro K5200 holds its own against much newer discrete desktop cards in aggregate scoring, despite its age.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, modern API support, or ray tracing, the Arc A770M is the only choice. For those looking at aggregate benchmark standings across a wide GPU database, the Quadro K5200 edges ahead by 1.2 percentage points in percentile rank.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. NVIDIA’s Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip built on Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². This is a desktop workstation GPU from the Quadro Kepler generation, released for the Kx200 series.

Intel’s Arc A770M uses the DG2-512 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 6 nm process. It contains 21,700 million transistors on a smaller 406 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². This is a mobile GPU from the Alchemist generation, designated Arc 7 Mobile.

The compute resources differ drastically. The Quadro K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Arc A770M has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The Arc A770M also includes 32 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Kepler architecture. FP16 performance is listed for the Arc A770M at 33.59 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro K5200 has no FP16 specification.

Memory architecture also differs: the Quadro K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Arc A770M uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A770M’s memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Arc A770M has a base clock of 1650 MHz and boost clock of 2050 MHz, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 runs at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. Shading units are 4,096 versus 2,304; TMUs are 256 versus 192; ROPs are 128 versus 48. The Arc A770M has 32 ray tracing cores; the Quadro has none.

Memory capacity is 16 GB versus 8 GB, with GDDR6 versus GDDR5. Bandwidth is 512.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s. The Arc A770M’s FP32 output is 16.79 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 262.4 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s; texture rate is 524.8 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s.

Power and form factor also diverge. The Quadro K5200 has a TDP of 150 W, is dual-slot, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. It measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Arc A770M has a 120 W TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, no power connectors, and no listed dimensions. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Display outputs differ: the Quadro K5200 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Arc A770M’s outputs are portable device dependent. API support shows the Arc A770M ahead with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, versus the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmark tests are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the Intel Arc A770M wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A770M scores 89,494 versus 19,024 for the Quadro K5200. The delta is -78.7%, indicating the Quadro is only about 21% of the Arc’s performance in this workload. This is consistent with the FP32 gap: 16.79 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc A770M scores 74,422 versus 20,180 for the Quadro K5200, a delta of -72.9%. The Quadro’s Vulkan score is slightly higher than its OpenCL score, but the Arc still leads by over 3.6 times.

Beyond these shared tests, the Arc A770M has additional benchmark data. It scores 2,278 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 11,774 in PassMark G3D, and 4,778 in PassMark GPU Compute. Its PassMark DirectX scores range from 56 (DX10) to 178 (DX9), with 69 for DX11 and 70 for DX12. The Quadro K5200 has no comparable test results in the provided data.

The aggregate scores tell a different story. The Quadro K5200’s average benchmark score is 19,602, which is 6.2% higher than the Arc A770M’s 18,383. The Quadro’s nearest rival is the AMD FirePro D300 (score 19,637, delta -0.2%), while the Arc A770M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 460 (score 18,373, delta +0.1%). This discrepancy suggests that the Arc A770M’s raw compute wins do not translate to higher standing in the broader benchmark database, possibly due to driver overhead or workload diversity.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: pick the Intel Arc A770M for any compute-heavy or modern-API workload, and pick the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 only if aggregate benchmark standing matters more than raw performance.

The Arc A770M wins both head-to-head tests by margins of 78.7% and 72.9%. It has 4.7 times the FP32 throughput, 2.6 times the memory bandwidth, 7 times the pixel rate, and 3.5 times the texture rate. It supports ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory doubles the Quadro’s 8 GB. For any user running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Arc A770M is the only rational choice.

The Quadro K5200’s advantage is narrow but real. It holds a higher percentile rank (64 vs 62) and a higher average benchmark score (19,602 vs 18,383). Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT and RX 7900 XTX, both newer desktop GPUs, and it outperforms the RX 7900 XTX by 1% in average score. This suggests the Kepler architecture still holds up in certain aggregated metrics.

However, the Quadro K5200 lacks any modern feature set. No ray tracing, no FP16 support, older API versions, and a 28 nm process. Its 150 W TDP is higher than the Arc A770M’s 120 W, despite delivering a fraction of the performance. The Quadro is end-of-life, as is the Arc A770M, but the Quadro’s release date of July 2014 places it in a different era.

For a workstation user relying on legacy OpenGL or specific Quadro-optimized software, the K5200’s percentile standing might matter. For anyone else, the Arc A770M’s benchmark dominance makes it the clear winner. The data is unambiguous: two tests, two wins for Intel, with margins that cannot be ignored.