Intel Arc B570 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The Intel Arc B570 and NVIDIA Quadro M4000M occupy the same overall performance percentile, yet they are generations apart in technology and capability. The data shows a clear, decisive shift in performance leadership toward the newer Intel part, with the Quadro holding on only in legacy context. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and practical implications for each card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparisons available are Geekbench compute tests, and the results are overwhelmingly one-sided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc B570 scores 83,514, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M manages just 19,989. That is a 317.8% delta — the Arc B570 delivers more than four times the raw compute throughput. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the Arc B570 posts 96,844 against the Quadro’s 20,971, a 361.8% advantage. These are not marginal wins; the Intel card is in a different performance class entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Arc B570 has ten recorded benchmark scores, including Passmark tests across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus 3DMark Steel Nomad. Its Passmark G3D score is 14,195, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result is 2,649. The Quadro M4000M has only two recorded benchmarks — the same Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests — and no DirectX or Passmark entries. This absence of data for the Quadro means its overall average score of 20,480 is built on just those two compute tests. The Arc B570’s average benchmark score is 20,556, which is remarkably close, but that figure is pulled from a much wider and more demanding set of workloads.

The average scores place both cards in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, and the nearest rival lists confirm they are near-neighbors in aggregate. The Quadro M4000M sits 0.4% below the Arc B570 in average score, while the Arc A750 is 0.1% above the B570. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is within 0.1% of the B570 as well. However, the aggregate similarity is misleading. The Arc B570’s average is buoyed by its compute-heavy scores, while the Quadro’s average is derived from a tiny sample. In any head-to-head compute task, the Arc B570 is categorically faster.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better OpenCL compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc B570 is 317.8% faster in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 83,514 versus the Quadro M4000M’s 19,989.

Q: Is the Quadro M4000M competitive in Vulkan workloads?

A: No. The Arc B570 scores 96,844 in Geekbench Vulkan, a 361.8% advantage over the Quadro’s 20,971. The Quadro’s Vulkan support is technically present (API version 1.4), but its performance is far behind.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Arc B570 averages 20,556 across ten tests, while the Quadro M4000M averages 20,480 across two tests. The Arc is 0.4% ahead, but that gap understates the real difference because the Quadro’s sample is much smaller.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc B570 has 2,304 shading units, compared to 1,280 on the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M. The Arc also has 144 texture mapping units and 80 ROPs, versus 80 TMUs and 64 ROPs on the Quadro.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Arc B570 has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s. The Arc has more capacity and over twice the bandwidth.

Q: Which card is still in production?

A: The Intel Arc B570 is listed as Active, with a release date of 2025-01-15. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is end-of-life, released on 2015-08-17, with its successor being the Quadro Pascal-M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The Intel Arc B570 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture (Battlemage generation) on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with the BMG-G21 chip. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture (Quadro Maxwell-M generation) on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with the GM204 chip. The process node difference is enormous: 5 nm versus 28 nm, which explains the massive transistor density gap. The Arc B570 packs 19,600 million transistors into a 272 mm² die, yielding 72.1 million transistors per mm². The Quadro M4000M has 5,200 million transistors on a larger 398 mm² die, for just 13.1 million per mm².

The Arc B570 includes 18 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro M4000M. The Intel card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the Arc’s newer architecture handles these APIs more efficiently. The Arc B570’s FP32 throughput is 11.52 TFLOPS, and it offers FP16 at 23.04 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The Quadro M4000M’s FP32 is 2.593 TFLOPS, with no FP16 data listed. The pixel rate and texture rate also favor the Arc: 200.0 GPixel/s and 360.0 GTexel/s, versus 64.83 GPixel/s and 81.04 GTexel/s on the Quadro.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The Arc B570 runs at a flat 2500 MHz base and boost, with memory at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The Quadro M4000M is clocked at 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Arc’s higher clocks, combined with more cores and faster memory, create a compound performance advantage that the benchmark results confirm.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet highlights where the two diverge most sharply. The Arc B570 has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 80 ROPs; the Quadro M4000M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Memory is 10 GB GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus versus 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Arc’s bandwidth is 380.0 GB/s, while the Quadro’s is 160.4 GB/s. The Arc B570’s TDP is 150 W, drawing power through a single 8-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Quadro M4000M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot, with no power connectors listed. The bus interface differs too: the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs are another differentiator. The Arc B570 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The Quadro M4000M’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The Arc is a dual-slot card measuring 272 mm in length and 115 mm in height; the Quadro has no listed dimensions. The production status is Active for the Arc and End-of-life for the Quadro. The Arc B570’s launch MSRP is 219 USD; the Quadro has no launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc B570 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M in every measured compute workload, and by enormous margins. The Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results show deltas of 317.8% and 361.8%, respectively. The Quadro M4000M’s only saving grace is its lower power draw — 100 W versus 150 W — and its legacy MXM form factor, which suits specific mobile workstations. But in raw performance, the Quadro is not competitive.

The Arc B570 is the clear choice for anyone who needs modern features like ray tracing, higher memory capacity, and substantially faster compute. Its 10 GB of GDDR6 memory and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth are far more useful for current workloads than the Quadro’s 4 GB GDDR5 and 160.4 GB/s. The Quadro M4000M, being end-of-life and built on a decade-old architecture, is only relevant if you are maintaining legacy systems that require its specific MXM interface. For any new purchase or upgrade, the data points squarely to the Arc B570.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc B570 wins in every benchmark category where data exists. It dominates in OpenCL compute (83,514 vs 19,989) and Vulkan compute (96,844 vs 20,971). It also holds the advantage in architectural features: ray tracing cores, higher FP32 throughput, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate. For gaming, content creation, or any GPU-accelerated task, the Arc B570 is the superior performer. Its higher TDP and dual-slot design are acceptable trade-offs for the performance gain.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins only in power efficiency and form factor. At 100 W, it draws less power than the Arc B570’s 150 W, and its MXM Module design is built for mobile workstations where space and cooling are constrained. If you need a drop-in replacement for an existing MXM-based laptop, the Quadro is the only option that fits. But that is a compatibility win, not a performance win. The benchmark results show no test where the Quadro M4000M comes out ahead. For anyone building or upgrading a desktop system, the Arc B570 is the only rational choice based on the data.