Intel Arc A770M vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison
Intel Arc A770M
Quadro K6000
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Arc A770M vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000
NVIDIA Quadro K6000 vs Intel Arc A770M: The data presents a stark generational clash. The Quadro K6000, a 2013-era Kepler workstation flagship, faces the Arc A770M, Intel's Alchemist mobile GPU built on a much newer node. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the Intel part wins decisively, but the older card still holds its own in the aggregate and offers a unique feature set for legacy environments.
FAQ
Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 holds a higher average benchmark score of 19030, edging out the Intel Arc A770M's 18383. This places the Quadro in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A770M sits just behind in the 62nd percentile.
Q: How big is the performance gap in compute workloads?
A: The Intel Arc A770M dominates in compute. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc scores 89494, which is 73.5% higher than the Quadro K6000's 23749. The advantage is similarly large in Vulkan, with the Arc's 74422 score beating the Quadro's 25409 by 65.9%.
Q: Does the older Quadro K6000 have any advantages in the data?
A: Yes, despite losing both head-to-head tests, the Quadro K6000 has a higher average benchmark score (19030 vs 18383) and a slightly better percentile ranking (63rd vs 62nd). This implies its performance is more consistent across a broader range of legacy or professional workloads, even if it loses in pure compute synthetics.
Q: What are the nearest competitors for each card based on average score?
A: The Quadro K6000's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6600, which scores 19036, a 0% delta. The Arc A770M's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 460, scoring 18373, a 0.1% delta, with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18159, 1.2% delta) also nearby.
Q: How do their memory architectures differ?
A: They are fundamentally different. The Quadro K6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A770M uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering significantly more bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s.
Q: What is the difference in their transistor counts and process nodes?
A: The Intel Arc A770M is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC and packs 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 uses a much older 28 nm process, housing only 7,080 million transistors on a larger 561 mm² die.
The Verdict
The data points to a clear, but nuanced, verdict. For any user prioritizing raw compute throughput, modern API support, or memory bandwidth, the Intel Arc A770M is the definitive choice. It delivers over three times the OpenCL score and nearly triple the Vulkan score of the Quadro K6000.
However, the Quadro K6000 is not obsolete in every sense. Its higher average benchmark score and better percentile ranking suggest it performs closer to its peak across a wider variety of tests. The data implies that for legacy professional applications that favor older architectures or specific driver optimizations, the K6000 might still offer a more balanced experience. Yet, the sheer magnitude of the Arc's wins in the head-to-head tests makes it the stronger overall product for modern workloads. The Arc A770M wins 2 out of 2 shared benchmarks; the Quadro K6000 wins 0.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head data is unambiguous. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A770M scores 89494 against the Quadro K6000's 23749. This results in a deltaPct of -73.5%, meaning the Quadro is 73.5% slower than the Arc. This is a massive generational leap in raw compute power.
In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the story is similar. The Arc A770M scores 74422, while the Quadro K6000 scores 25409. The deltaPct is -65.9%, again in favor of the Intel part. While the percentage gap is slightly smaller than in OpenCL, it is still a decisive defeat for the older NVIDIA card. These results suggest that the Arc A770M's architecture is vastly more efficient at handling modern, parallel compute tasks and graphics APIs.
Specification Differences
The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts. The Intel Arc A770M features 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, compared to the Quadro K6000's 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Arc also has 32 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Kepler-based Quadro.
Clock speeds differ significantly, with the Arc's base clock at 1650 MHz and boost at 2050 MHz, versus the Quadro's much lower 797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. This contributes to the Arc's far higher theoretical performance: 16.79 TFLOPS FP32 versus the Quadro's 5.196 TFLOPS. The Arc also has a distinct advantage in memory, offering 16 GB of GDDR6 at 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro has 12 GB of GDDR5 at 288.4 GB/s.
Power and physical characteristics also diverge. The Quadro K6000 is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP, requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W power supply. The Arc A770M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a much lower 120 W TDP, no dedicated power connectors, and no specified PSU requirement. The Quadro uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Arc uses the newer PCIe 4.0 x16.
Architecture Differences
The architectural divide is generational. The Quadro K6000 is based on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture (chip GK110B), built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It features 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². It supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.
In contrast, the Intel Arc A770M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture (chip DG2-512) from the Alchemist generation. It uses a much more advanced 6 nm process at the same foundry, TSMC, packing 21,700 million transistors into a smaller 406 mm² die. This results in a dramatically higher transistor density of 53.4M / mm². The Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and the newer Vulkan 1.4 API. It also includes 32 ray tracing cores, a feature the Quadro K6000 lacks entirely. The Arc also has a major FP16 advantage, offering 33.59 TFLOPS (2:1) compared to the Quadro's null FP16 capability.
Where Each One Wins
Intel Arc A770M Wins: The Arc A770M is the clear winner in any scenario requiring maximum compute throughput. Its 73.5% lead in OpenCL and 65.9% lead in Vulkan make it the superior choice for machine learning inference, data processing, or any modern GPU-accelerated compute task. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 also makes it the better option for modern gaming or applications using the latest graphics features. The 16 GB GDDR6 memory with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a substantial advantage in texture-heavy or large-dataset workloads. Its 32 ray tracing cores give it a capability the Quadro cannot match.
NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Wins: The Quadro K6000's advantage is more subtle and based on aggregate data rather than direct wins. Its higher average benchmark score (19030 vs 18383) and higher percentile ranking (63rd vs 62nd) suggest it may be a more stable and consistent performer across a broad spectrum of older, legacy professional applications. For a workstation running established CAD or DCC software that relies on OpenGL (both support 4.6) or older compute APIs, the Quadro's specialized driver optimizations and 12 GB of VRAM might provide a more reliable, if slower, experience. Its dual-slot, 225 W desktop form factor with dedicated 2x 6-pin power connectors makes it a straightforward drop-in for older workstation PCs, whereas the Arc A770M is a mobile IGP. The Quadro's launch MSRP was 5,265 USD.