Intel Arc A770M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive generational gap between these two mobile graphics solutions. In the only two directly comparable tests, the Intel Arc A770M wins both, and the margins are enormous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A770M scores 89,494 against 19,989 for the Quadro M4000M. That is a delta of 77.7% in favor of the Intel part, meaning the Quadro delivers less than a quarter of the raw compute throughput in this workload. The Geekbench Vulkan result tells a similar story: the Arc A770M posts 74,422, while the Quadro M4000M manages 20,971, a 71.8% deficit for the older NVIDIA chip.

Context from the database clarifies what these numbers mean. The Quadro M4000M sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 20,480. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered around it: the GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile averages 20,534 (0.3% higher), the Intel Arc B570 averages 20,556 (0.4% higher), the Arc A750 averages 20,582 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X averages 20,662 (0.9% higher). The Quadro is essentially dead level with these parts, within a single percentage point of each one. That tells a builder that the Quadro M4000M is a solid mid-pack performer from its era, but it is not punching above its class.

The Arc A770M, by contrast, has a more volatile profile. Its average benchmark score is 18,383, which places it at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, slightly below the Quadro's percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 460 at 18,373 (0.1% lower), the AMD FirePro D500 at 18,533 (0.8% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 at 18,189 (1.1% lower), and the GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile at 18,159 (1.2% lower). So on average, the Arc A770M and the Quadro M4000M are separated by only about 10% in aggregate score, even though the Arc wins the individual head-to-head tests by massive margins. This is a case where the average score hides the true character of the two cards: the Arc has huge peaks in OpenCL and Vulkan, but its other recorded tests, including Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores, are relatively low, dragging its overall average down. The Quadro, with only two recorded benchmarks, has a narrower but more consistent profile.

The head-to-head table in the database shows two wins for the Arc A770M and none for the Quadro. No single test favors the older card. Even in the Vulkan test, where the Quadro's score of 20,971 is actually higher than its OpenCL result, the Arc still leads by 71.8%. The Arc's Vulkan score of 74,422 is over three and a half times the Quadro's best recorded result. That is not a close contest by any measure.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing generations and design philosophies. The Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 398 mm² and contains 5,200 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Arc A770M uses the DG2-512 chip with Xe-HPG architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 6 nm node. Its die is 406 mm², only slightly larger, but it packs 21,700 million transistors, yielding a density of 53.4 million per square millimeter. That is more than four times the transistor density of the Maxwell part, which explains how Intel fits so much more compute into nearly the same silicon area.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Quadro M4000M has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Arc A770M has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, which is exactly 3.2 times the shader count, 3.2 times the TMUs, and double the ROPs. The Arc also features 32 ray tracing cores, while the Quadro has none. Neither card lists tensor cores in the database.

Clock speeds reflect the newer process. The Quadro runs at a 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost. The Arc runs at 1650 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, roughly 70% higher base and over double the boost clock. Combined with the shader advantage, the raw throughput numbers are not close. The Quadro delivers 2.593 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, a pixel rate of 64.83 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 81.04 GTexel/s. The Arc delivers 16.79 TFLOPS FP32, 262.4 GPixel/s, and 524.8 GTexel/s. In FP16, the Arc reaches 33.59 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 figure. Every rate metric favors the Intel part by a factor of roughly 4 to 6.5.

Memory is another clear divide. The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Arc has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a 2000 MHz memory clock (16 Gbps effective). The capacity is four times larger, and the bandwidth is more than triple. Both cards use a 256 bit interface, so the bandwidth difference comes entirely from the newer GDDR6 standard and higher effective clock.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Quadro is rated at 100 W TDP and ships as an MXM module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices with device-dependent display outputs. The Arc is rated at 120 W TDP, classified as an IGP (integrated GPU package style, likely for a laptop or mobile platform), and also has portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x16, doubling the bus bandwidth available to the host interface. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, adding the feature level required for modern ray tracing and mesh shader workloads.

The Quadro M4000M was released in August 2015, with a predecessor of Quadro Kepler-M and a successor of Quadro Pascal-M. The Arc A770M has no recorded release date, predecessor, or successor in the database. The Quadro is marked as end-of-life, and the Arc is also marked as end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload. If the task is modern compute-heavy rendering, machine learning inference, or any workload that can exploit OpenCL or Vulkan parallelism, the Arc A770M is the only rational choice. Its OpenCL score is 4.5 times higher and its Vulkan score is 3.5 times higher than the Quadro's best. The 16 GB memory capacity and 512 GB/s bandwidth also matter for large datasets and high-resolution textures, where the Quadro's 4 GB frame buffer would become a hard limit.

If the task is legacy compatibility, driver maturity in older DirectX titles, or a build where power draw must stay minimal, the Quadro M4000M has a place. Its 100 W TDP is lower than the Arc's 120 W, it uses PCIe 3.0 which is compatible with older platforms, and its average benchmark score of 20,480 is actually higher than the Arc's 18,383. The Quadro also sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, three points above the Arc's 62nd percentile. For a builder with an older MXM-based laptop that needs a drop-in replacement, the Quadro is the pragmatic pick.

But for anyone choosing between these two as a primary GPU for new work, the Arc A770M wins on raw performance, memory, API support, and feature set. The Quadro's higher average score is a statistical artifact of having only two recorded benchmarks, both of which it loses by massive margins. The Arc's lower average comes from dragging low Passmark scores, but those tests are not the ones that matter for modern GPU compute. The recorded data shows the Arc as the faster card in every directly comparable test, and the architecture gap is too wide for the Quadro to close.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro M4000M uses a 28 nm process with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die; the Arc A770M uses a 6 nm process with 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. Transistor density jumps from 13.1M per mm² to 53.4M per mm². Clock speeds move from 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost to 1650 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost. Memory configuration changes from 4 GB GDDR5 at 160.4 GB/s to 16 GB GDDR6 at 512.0 GB/s, with effective memory speed rising from 5 Gbps to 16 Gbps. Shader count goes from 1,280 to 4,096, TMUs from 80 to 256, ROPs from 64 to 128, and the Arc adds 32 ray tracing cores. Pixel rate rises from 64.83 GPixel/s to 262.4 GPixel/s, texture rate from 81.04 GTexel/s to 524.8 GTexel/s, and FP32 from 2.593 TFLOPS to 16.79 TFLOPS. The Arc also records 33.59 TFLOPS FP16, while the Quadro has none. TDP goes from 100 W to 120 W. The bus interface changes from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 4.0 x16. DirectX support improves from 12 (12_1) to 12 Ultimate (12_2). The release date is recorded only for the Quadro, August 2015, with no date listed for the Arc.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A770M scores 89,494 versus 19,989 for the Quadro M4000M, a 77.7% lead for the Arc.

Q: How much VRAM does each GPU have?

A: The Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the Arc A770M has 16 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Does the Arc A770M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A770M has 32 ray tracing cores. The Quadro M4000M has no ray tracing cores recorded.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro M4000M has an average score of 20,480, which is higher than the Arc A770M's 18,383.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Quadro M4000M is rated at 100 W, while the Arc A770M is rated at 120 W.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Arc A770M has 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, more than triple the Quadro's 160.4 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A770M wins in every directly benchmarked category. It dominates OpenCL and Vulkan compute, with scores of 89,494 and 74,422 respectively, against 19,989 and 20,971 for the Quadro. Its 16 GB frame buffer and 512 GB/s bandwidth make it the clear choice for modern workloads that demand large working sets, such as high-resolution texture streaming, GPU compute, or AI inference. The 32 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support give it a feature set that the Quadro simply cannot match for new game development or rendering pipelines. The higher base and boost clocks, combined with 4,096 shading units, mean it will pull ahead in any shader-bound task.

The Quadro M4000M wins in niche but real scenarios. Its lower 100 W TDP makes it easier to cool in constrained mobile chassis. Its average benchmark score of 20,480 exceeds the Arc's 18,383, so in aggregate it is not an embarrassing part. It sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, three points higher than the Arc's 62nd, which suggests that in the mixed set of workloads represented by the database, it holds up better than the Arc's average does. For a legacy MXM-based laptop that needs a known-good replacement with a 2015-era driver stack, the Quadro is the safer bet. For any new build or any task that can use Vulkan or OpenCL, the Arc A770M is the only defensible pick. The recorded data is unambiguous: two head-to-head tests, two wins for Intel, and the margins are not close.