Intel Arc A770M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison
Intel Arc A770M
Quadro RTX 4000
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Arc A770M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
The Verdict
The Intel Arc A770M and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 are both end-of-life mobile or workstation graphics solutions, but the data points to two very different usage profiles. The Arc A770M wins the head-to-head in three of ten benchmark comparisons, while the Quadro RTX 4000 claims seven. However, the average benchmark scores tell a near-tied story: the Arc A770M posts an average score of 18,383 across all benchmarks, which is 3.3% higher than the Quadro RTX 4000's 17,789. The Arc A770M also sits at the 62nd percentile against all GPUs, one point above the Quadro's 61st. This suggests the Intel part is the more consistent all-rounder in modern workloads, while the NVIDIA part excels in specific legacy and compute-oriented tests.
From the data, the Arc A770M is the pick for users prioritizing modern DirectX 12 performance, raw FP32 throughput, and larger memory capacity. The Quadro RTX 4000 is the pick for users who rely on DirectX 10/11 legacy titles, OpenCL compute, or 2D desktop workloads. The Quadro also carries a launch MSRP of 899 USD (stated once here), but that figure is not a factor in the performance analysis. The Arc A770M's 16 GB GDDR6 versus the Quadro's 8 GB GDDR6 is a decisive advantage for memory-heavy tasks, while the Quadro's 288 tensor cores and 36 RT cores make it a stronger candidate for AI-accelerated or ray-tracing workloads, even if the raw benchmark scores do not always reflect that. In short: choose the Arc A770M for future-facing game engines and large datasets; choose the Quadro RTX 4000 for established workstation software and legacy API compatibility.
FAQ
Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Arc A770M, with an average benchmark score of 18,383, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000's 17,789. That is a 3.3% difference in Intel's favor.
Q: How do the two compare in DirectX 12 performance?
A: The Arc A770M wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test by 21.6% (2,278 vs 1,873) and the Passmark DirectX 12 test by 34.6% (70 vs 52). The Quadro RTX 4000 only wins the older DirectX 11 test, where it scores 128 versus the Arc's 69.
Q: Which GPU has more memory, and does it matter in the scores?
A: The Arc A770M has 16 GB of GDDR6, double the Quadro's 8 GB. The bandwidth is also higher on the Arc: 512.0 GB/s versus 416.0 GB/s. This likely contributes to the Arc's wins in modern, memory-hungry benchmarks like 3DMark and Geekbench OpenCL.
Q: What about Vulkan performance?
A: The Quadro RTX 4000 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 78,844 against the Arc's 74,422, a 5.6% margin. This is the only next-generation API test where NVIDIA's older architecture prevails.
Q: Are there any workload areas where the Quadro RTX 4000 clearly dominates?
A: Yes. The Quadro wins the Passmark DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 tests by 48.1% and 46.1%, respectively. It also wins the Passmark G3D test by 22.1% (15,117 vs 11,774) and the GPU compute test by 22.6% (6,176 vs 4,778).
Q: Which GPU has the higher percentile ranking against all GPUs?
A: The Arc A770M ranks at the 62nd percentile, while the Quadro RTX 4000 ranks at the 61st. The difference is marginal, but it aligns with the Arc's slightly higher average score.
Architecture Differences
The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Intel Arc A770M uses the DG2-512 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4 million per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip with the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 13,600 million transistors on a larger 545 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 25.0 million per mm². The process node advantage explains why Intel fits more transistors in a smaller area.
In terms of compute resources, the Arc A770M has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs. The Quadro RTX 4000 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Intel part has roughly 78% more shading units and 78% more TMUs. However, the Quadro RTX 4000 counters with 288 tensor cores, which Intel does not list, and 36 RT cores versus the Arc's 32. The Quadro's Turing architecture also predates the Arc's Alchemist generation by several years, but both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.
Clock speeds differ significantly. The Arc A770M runs at a base of 1650 MHz and a boost of 2050 MHz, while the Quadro RTX 4000 runs at 1005 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost. The Arc's higher clocks, combined with its wider shading unit count, produce a theoretical FP32 throughput of 16.79 TFLOPS versus the Quadro's 7.119 TFLOPS. The Arc also delivers a pixel rate of 262.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 524.8 GTexel/s, more than double the Quadro's 98.88 GPixel/s and 222.5 GTexel/s. These raw numbers explain why the Arc dominates in modern synthetic benchmarks, even if the Quadro wins in legacy and compute-specific tests.
Specification Differences
The most obvious differences between the two parts lie in their physical and memory configurations. The Arc A770M is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with a TDP of 120 W, while the Quadro RTX 4000 is a single-slot card with a TDP of 160 W and requires one 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Quadro also has physical dimensions of 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Arc lists no length or height. The bus interface differs: the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16.
Memory capacity and speed also differ. The Arc has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) delivering 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) delivering 416.0 GB/s. The Arc's doubling of capacity and 23% higher bandwidth are significant for large textures and datasets. Display outputs also vary: the Arc's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," while the Quadro offers 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The Quadro's release date is listed as 2018-11-12, while the Arc has no release date in the data. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere; the Arc lists no predecessor or successor.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head results show a clear split between modern and legacy workloads. The Arc A770M wins three tests. Its largest victory is in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where it scores 2,278 against the Quadro's 1,873, a 21.6% advantage. It also wins Geekbench OpenCL by 20.1% (89,494 vs 74,540) and Passmark DirectX 12 by 34.6% (70 vs 52). These wins align with the Arc's higher shading unit count, faster clocks, and greater memory bandwidth.
The Quadro RTX 4000 wins seven tests. Its most dominant victory is in Passmark DirectX 10, where it scores 108 versus the Arc's 56, a 48.1% margin. It also wins Passmark DirectX 11 by 46.1% (128 vs 69). In Passmark G3D, the Quadro scores 15,117 against the Arc's 11,774, a 22.1% lead. The Quadro also wins Passmark GPU Compute by 22.6% (6,176 vs 4,778). Smaller wins include Geekbench Vulkan by 5.6% (78,844 vs 74,422), Passmark DirectX 9 by 13.2% (205 vs 178), and Passmark G2D by 16% (846 vs 711). The Quadro's tensor cores likely drive its compute win, while its legacy API optimizations explain the DirectX 9/10/11 results.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Arc A770M is the clear winner in modern DirectX 12 workloads. Its 34.6% lead in Passmark DirectX 12 and 21.6% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad indicate strong performance in current game engines and future-oriented applications. The 20.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL also suggests the Arc handles general-purpose compute well, likely due to its 16.79 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the Quadro's 7.119 TFLOPS. The 16 GB memory capacity makes it the better choice for workloads that exceed the Quadro's 8 GB limit, such as high-resolution textures or large machine learning datasets. The Arc's higher percentile rank (62nd vs 61st) and higher average score (18,383 vs 17,789) confirm it is the more balanced performer overall.
The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins in legacy API environments. Its 48.1% lead in DirectX 10 and 46.1% lead in DirectX 11 make it the safer choice for older professional applications that have not updated their rendering pipelines. The 22.6% win in Passmark GPU Compute, despite lower raw FP32, points to the effectiveness of its 288 tensor cores for certain parallel workloads. The Quadro also wins in 2D performance (Passmark G2D by 16%) and in Vulkan (by 5.6%), giving it an edge in desktop compositing and cross-platform graphics. Its single-slot form factor and fixed dimensions (241 mm length) make it more suitable for compact workstation chassis, whereas the Arc's IGP package is dependent on the portable device it is integrated into. For users running established CAD or DCC software that relies on DirectX 11 or older, the Quadro's benchmark wins indicate it will likely provide smoother performance. For users targeting DirectX 12-only titles or needing more than 8 GB of memory, the Arc A770M is the data-backed recommendation.