Intel Arc A770M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 and the Intel Arc A770M is clear-cut when you separate legacy compatibility, modern API performance, and compute workloads. The Quadro RTX 5000 takes 6 of the 9 head-to-head tests, while the Arc A770M wins 3. That alone suggests the NVIDIA card is the more versatile choice, but the specific tests each one wins tell a more useful story.

The Quadro RTX 5000 dominates the older DirectX paths. In DirectX 10 it scores 113 versus 56 for the Arc, a 101.8% advantage. In DirectX 11 the margin is even larger at 102.9%, with 140 versus 69. Even in DirectX 9, the oldest API tested, the Quadro leads 195 to 178, a 9.6% gap. If your workload involves legacy applications, enterprise visualization tools, or games that rely on pre-12 DirectX, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the safer bet by a wide margin.

The Arc A770M, on the other hand, shows its strength in modern compute and the latest DirectX iteration. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel card scores 89494 versus 78999 for the Quadro, an 11.7% lead. In Passmark DirectX 12, the Arc wins 70 to 59, a 15.7% margin. It also edges out the Quadro in Passmark G2D, 711 to 709, though that 0.3% difference is effectively a tie. So for compute-heavy tasks that scale across many shading units, and for DirectX 12 titles, the Arc A770M is the better performer.

The Quadro RTX 5000 also claims the two most important overall metrics. In Passmark G3D, it scores 15616 against 11774 for the Arc, a 32.6% advantage. In Passmark GPU Compute, the lead is 6525 versus 4778, a 36.6% margin. These are broad synthetic measures of graphics and compute performance, and the NVIDIA card wins both decisively.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs come from different generations and design philosophies. The Quadro RTX 5000 uses the TU104 chip on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 13,600 million transistors into a 545 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². The Arc A770M uses the DG2-512 chip on Intel's Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 53.4 million per mm².

The core configurations differ substantially. The Quadro RTX 5000 has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores. The Arc A770M has more raw shader hardware: 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, but only 32 RT cores and no tensor cores at all. This explains why the Arc wins in OpenCL compute where raw shader throughput matters, but the Quadro's tensor cores give it an edge in AI-adjacent workloads, though no specific benchmark in this data directly tests tensor performance.

Clock speeds favor the Intel part. The Arc A770M runs at a 1650 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, while the Quadro RTX 5000 is at 1620 MHz base and 1815 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the Arc uses 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the Quadro. Both have 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but the Arc's higher memory clock gives it 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 448.0 GB/s for the Quadro.

Process node and power tell the rest of the story. The Quadro RTX 5000 is a 230 W dual-slot card requiring a 550 W power supply and two power connectors (1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin). The Arc A770M is an IGP, meaning it is designed for mobile integration, with a 120 W TDP and no separate power connectors or suggested PSU. The Arc also uses PCIe 4.0 x16 while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Quadro RTX 5000 comes in Passmark DirectX 11, where it scores 140 against 69 for the Arc A770M, a 102.9% advantage. DirectX 10 is nearly identical: 113 versus 56, a 101.8% lead. These are the kind of results you would expect from a mature driver stack and an architecture designed with legacy compatibility in mind.

In Passmark G3D, the Quadro posts 15616 versus 11774, a 32.6% win. That is a substantial gap in overall 3D graphics performance. Passmark GPU Compute shows a similar story: 6525 versus 4778, a 36.6% margin. The Quadro also wins Geekbench Vulkan with 92309 against 74422, a 24% advantage. DirectX 9 is closer, 195 versus 178, a 9.6% win for NVIDIA.

The Arc A770M's biggest win is in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 89494 versus 78999, an 11.7% lead. That is notable because OpenCL is a cross-platform compute API, and the Arc's 4096 shading units clearly help there. In Passmark DirectX 12, the Arc wins 70 to 59, a 15.7% margin, which suggests its newer architecture handles the modern API more efficiently. The Passmark G2D test is essentially a draw: 711 versus 709, a 0.3% edge for Intel.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Quadro RTX 5000 sits at 21629, which places it in the 67th percentile of all GPUs. The Arc A770M averages 18383, in the 62nd percentile. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB at 21856 (1% higher) and the RTX A4000 Mobile at 21379 (1.2% lower). The Arc's nearest rivals are the Radeon RX 460 at 18373 (0.1% higher) and the FirePro D500 at 18533 (0.8% lower).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in DirectX 11 and older APIs?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 wins decisively. It leads by 101.8% in DirectX 10 and 102.9% in DirectX 11, plus a 9.6% margin in DirectX 9.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A770M win any benchmark?

A: Yes. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 11.7%, Passmark DirectX 12 by 15.7%, and Passmark G2D by 0.3%.

Q: Which card has more raw shader hardware?

A: The Arc A770M has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, compared to 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs on the Quadro RTX 5000.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth numbers compare?

A: The Arc A770M has 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro RTX 5000 has 448.0 GB/s. Both use 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the Quadro RTX 5000 has tensor cores, with 384 of them. The Arc A770M has no tensor cores listed.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score difference?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 averages 21629, which is 17.7% higher than the Arc A770M's 18383.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 if your work involves legacy DirectX applications, Vulkan, or broad 3D graphics performance. It wins 6 of 9 head-to-head tests, including the two most important ones: Passmark G3D by 32.6% and Passmark GPU Compute by 36.6%. Its 24% lead in Geekbench Vulkan and 101.8% to 102.9% margins in DirectX 10 and 11 make it the obvious pick for compatibility-heavy environments. The 384 tensor cores are a bonus for any workload that can use them, though no benchmark here directly measures that.

Choose the Intel Arc A770M if your priority is modern compute and DirectX 12. It leads in Geekbench OpenCL by 11.7% and in Passmark DirectX 12 by 15.7%. Its 4096 shading units and higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s) make it competitive in raw throughput. It also consumes less power at 120 W versus 230 W, and it is an IGP, making it suitable for mobile designs where the Quadro's dual-slot, 267 mm form factor would not fit.

The data points to the Quadro RTX 5000 as the stronger overall performer, with a 17.7% higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking (67th versus 62nd). But the Arc A770M is not a poor card; it simply wins in different areas. If you need DirectX 12 performance and OpenCL compute, the Arc is the better fit. If you need broad compatibility and higher peak performance across most tests, the Quadro is the safer choice.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 | Intel Arc A770M |

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

| Architecture | Turing | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 13,600 million | 21,700 million |

| Die Size | 545 mm² | 406 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 53.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1620 MHz | 1650 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1815 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 192 | 256 |

| ROPs | 64 | 128 |

| RT Cores | 48 | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 384 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 11.15 TFLOPS | 16.79 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1) | 33.59 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 116.2 GPixel/s | 262.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 348.5 GTexel/s | 524.8 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 230 W | 120 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | None |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | Portable Device Dependent |