Intel Arc A770M vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

NVIDIA's RTX 2000 Ada Generation and Intel's Arc A770M represent two very different philosophies in GPU design, one a compact professional workstation card and the other a high-end mobile part. Benchmark data shows a clear split: the RTX 2000 Ada leads in 8 of 10 head-to-head tests, while the Arc A770M wins decisively in raw compute and modern DirectX 12 workloads. The average benchmark scores are close, 18,954 for the NVIDIA card versus 18,383 for Intel, but that aggregate hides significant per-test volatility. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A770M is at the 62nd, a near tie in overall standing.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation scores 18,954 on average, which is approximately 3% higher than the Intel Arc A770M's 18,383.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A770M is the clear winner in compute. It delivers 16.79 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 12.00 TFLOPS for the RTX 2000 Ada, a 40% advantage in theoretical peak throughput.

Q: Which GPU performs better in legacy DirectX benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation dominates older APIs. In the Passmark DirectX 11 test, it scores 138 versus the Arc A770M's 69, a 100% advantage. The gap narrows in DirectX 12, where the NVIDIA card leads by just 1.4% (71 vs 70).

Q: Is the RTX 2000 Ada Generation faster in Vulkan?

A: Yes. In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA card scores 83,360, which is 12% higher than the Arc A770M's 74,422.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a TDP of 70 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The Arc A770M has a TDP of 120 W, with no PSU rating provided due to its integrated nature.

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A770M has double the memory bandwidth of the NVIDIA card. It offers 512.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, whereas the RTX 2000 Ada Generation provides 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different architectures and process nodes. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip based on Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 118.9 million per mm². In contrast, the Intel Arc A770M uses the DG2-512 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, also from TSMC but on a 6 nm node. It contains 21,700 million transistors across a much larger 406 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 53.4 million per mm².

The Intel chip is physically massive, more than 2.5 times the die size of the NVIDIA part, yet it is classified as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) for mobile systems. The RTX 2000 Ada is a dual-slot discrete card measuring 168 mm in length. This form factor difference explains the power disparity: the Arc A770M draws 120 W TDP, while the RTX 2000 Ada sips just 70 W.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The Arc A770M has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs. The RTX 2000 Ada has 2,816 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Intel also includes 32 ray tracing cores, compared to 22 on the NVIDIA card. However, the RTX 2000 Ada features 88 tensor cores, a capability the Arc A770M lacks entirely. The NVIDIA card also has a higher boost clock at 2130 MHz versus 2050 MHz for Intel.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. Memory configurations match in capacity at 16 GB of GDDR6, though the Intel card uses a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit on NVIDIA, doubling bandwidth. The RTX 2000 Ada uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Arc A770M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, giving Intel twice the host interface bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Arc A770M wins the two most demanding modern workloads. In 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12), the Arc scores 2,278 against the RTX 2000 Ada's 1,767, a 22.4% victory for Intel. Similarly, in Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc leads with 89,494 versus 78,074, a 12.8% advantage. These two wins highlight the Intel card's raw compute muscle, which aligns with its higher FP32 throughput.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation sweeps the remaining eight tests, often by substantial margins. The biggest delta comes in Passmark DirectX 11, where the NVIDIA card scores 138 to Intel's 69, a 100% difference. Passmark GPU Compute shows a 64% lead for NVIDIA (7,834 vs 4,778). The DirectX 9 test favors the RTX 2000 Ada by 21.3% (216 vs 178). DirectX 10 sees a 46.4% gap (82 vs 56). Even the 2D tests show NVIDIA dominance: Passmark G2D scores 1,072 versus 711, a 50.8% advantage.

The closest contest is Passmark DirectX 12, where the RTX 2000 Ada edges out the Arc A770M by just 1.4% (71 vs 70). This near tie in modern DX12 is notable, as it suggests the NVIDIA card's architecture is more efficient despite lower theoretical specs. Geekbench Vulkan also favors NVIDIA, with a 12% lead (83,360 vs 74,422). Passmark G3D shows a 43.8% NVIDIA advantage (16,927 vs 11,774), which is a significant gap in overall 3D performance.

The pattern is clear: Intel wins where raw compute and memory bandwidth dominate, while NVIDIA wins in driver-optimized legacy APIs and overall 3D rendering. The RTX 2000 Ada's tensor cores likely contribute to its compute test performance, even though the Arc has more shading units.

The Verdict

The data suggests two distinct use cases. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the better all-round performer, winning 8 of 10 benchmarks and posting a higher average score (18,954 vs 18,383). Its leads in DirectX 9, 10, and 11 are massive, ranging from 21.3% to 100%, indicating superior driver maturity and legacy API support. For professional workstation workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan, the RTX 2000 Ada also holds a 12% Vulkan lead, though it trails by 12.8% in OpenCL.

The Intel Arc A770M is a specialist. Its 22.4% win in 3DMark Steel Nomad and 12.8% win in Geekbench OpenCL suggest it is the stronger choice for pure compute tasks and modern DX12 gaming at high resolutions, where its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth provides an edge. However, its Passmark scores are consistently lower, and it falls behind by 43.8% in G3D and 64% in GPU Compute, which are more representative of general 3D rendering workloads.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the safer pick for most users. It is smaller, consumes 50 W less power, and requires no external power connectors, making it far easier to integrate into compact systems. Its 70 W TDP versus 120 W for the Arc means lower thermal and power demands. The NVIDIA card also has a longer production status (Active versus End-of-life for Intel), and its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs are professional-grade, while the Arc's outputs are portable-device dependent.

The Arc A770M makes sense only if the workload is heavily compute-bound and the platform supports its 120 W power draw and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. It offers 40% more FP32 throughput and twice the memory bandwidth, which are tangible advantages in specific tasks. But for general use, legacy compatibility, and sustained 3D performance, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the data-backed winner. The 0.4% gap between the NVIDIA card and its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, further confirms its consistency, whereas the Arc A770M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 460, a much older card.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation | Intel Arc A770M |

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

| Chip | AD107 | DG2-512 |

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 18,900 million | 21,700 million |

| Die Size | 159 mm² | 406 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 118.9M / mm² | 53.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1620 MHz | 1650 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2130 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2816 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 88 | 256 |

| ROPs | 48 | 128 |

| RT Cores | 22 | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 88 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 102.2 GPixel/s | 262.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 187.4 GTexel/s | 524.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 12.00 TFLOPS | 16.79 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1) | 33.59 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 70 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | 649 USD | Not specified |

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 69 mm | Not specified |