Intel Arc B570 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two GPUs almost perfectly down the middle, with each card claiming five victories across the ten recorded tests. The Intel Arc B570 dominates the modern, API-forward workloads: it wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, both GeekBench compute tests, the PassMark DX12 test, and the PassMark GPU compute test. Meanwhile, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 secures its wins in the legacy DirectX 9, 10, and 11 tests, the 2D graphics test, and the overall PassMark G3D score.

This is a clear generational divide. The Arc B570, built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, shows its strength in workloads that leverage the latest graphics APIs and compute paradigms. Its 41.4% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is the single largest margin in the entire comparison, signaling that for modern DX12 gaming and rendering workloads, the Intel card is decisively faster. The Quadro RTX 4000, despite being from the older Turing architecture, retains an edge in older DirectX versions, which suggests it may still be competitive in legacy software environments or applications that have not been optimized for newer API paths.

The compute picture is also lopsided in Intel's favor. The Arc B570 leads by 12% in GeekBench OpenCL, by 22.8% in GeekBench Vulkan, and by 17.9% in PassMark GPU Compute. These are substantial margins that point to the Intel card being the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks, from rendering to simulation workloads that can utilize OpenCL or Vulkan compute shaders.

However, the Quadro's win in PassMark G3D (15117 vs 14195, a 6.1% advantage) is notable. This is an aggregate 3D graphics score that blends multiple tests, and it suggests that in a mixed workload of older and newer API tests, the NVIDIA card can still come out ahead. The Quadro also wins the 2D test by 21.9%, which is a niche but relevant metric for desktop productivity and CAD-style 2D viewport work.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in modern DX12 games?

A: The Intel Arc B570 wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test with a score of 2649 versus the Quadro RTX 4000's 1873, a 41.4% advantage. It also wins the PassMark DirectX 12 test by 38.5% (72 vs 52).

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 have any advantage in older DirectX titles?

A: Yes, the Quadro wins all three legacy DirectX tests: DirectX 9 by 20% (205 vs 164), DirectX 10 by 39.8% (108 vs 65), and DirectX 11 by 7.8% (128 vs 118).

Q: Which card has better compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc B570 leads in every compute-focused benchmark: GeekBench OpenCL (83514 vs 74540, 12% ahead), GeekBench Vulkan (96844 vs 78844, 22.8% ahead), and PassMark GPU Compute (7281 vs 6176, 17.9% ahead).

Q: What is the overall benchmark score comparison?

A: The Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556, placing it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro RTX 4000 has an average score of 17789, placing it in the 61st percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw 3D graphics performance?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 wins the PassMark G3D test with 15117 points versus the Arc B570's 14195, a 6.1% margin. However, the Arc wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test by 41.4%.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has a higher memory bandwidth at 416.0 GB/s, compared to the Arc B570's 380.0 GB/s, despite the Arc having a larger memory capacity of 10 GB versus 8 GB.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the entire dataset is the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score. The Intel Arc B570 posts 2649 points, while the Quadro RTX 4000 manages only 1873. That is a 41.4% delta, the largest of any test. For context, the nearest rivals to the Arc B570 in the database include the GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (within 0.1%) and the Intel Arc A750 (within 0.1%), meaning this level of DX12 performance puts it in a competitive modern gaming tier. The Quadro, by contrast, sits near the GeForce RTX 4060 in its own nearest rivals list (0.9% delta), which shows how far back it is in this specific test.

The GeekBench Vulkan test also shows a decisive Intel victory, with the Arc B570 scoring 96844 against the Quadro's 78844, a 22.8% lead. This is significant because Vulkan is increasingly used in both gaming and professional visualization applications. The OpenCL result is closer but still favors Intel: 83514 vs 74540, a 12% margin. These two compute-oriented tests together suggest that the Arc B570 offers a meaningfully stronger foundation for GPU-accelerated compute tasks.

The PassMark DirectX 12 test reinforces the modern API story, with Intel winning 72 to 52, a 38.5% advantage. Meanwhile, the PassMark GPU Compute test goes to Intel by 17.9% (7281 vs 6176). Across all four of these modern or compute-focused tests, the Intel card's wins are all in double digits, showing a consistent pattern of superiority in the workloads that matter for current and future software.

The Quadro's counter-attack comes in the legacy tests. The DirectX 10 result is its biggest win: 108 vs 65, a 39.8% margin. The DirectX 9 test shows a 20% lead (205 vs 164), and DirectX 11 is closer at 7.8% (128 vs 118). The 2D graphics test also goes to NVIDIA by 21.9% (846 vs 661). The PassMark G3D aggregate score, which combines various 3D tests, narrowly favors the Quadro at 15117 vs 14195, a 6.1% difference. These results indicate that the Quadro RTX 4000 retains a real edge in older software environments, which could matter for specific legacy professional applications.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on process technology. The Intel Arc B570 is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 272 mm² and 19,600 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 72.1M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 uses a 12 nm process, also at TSMC, with a much larger die of 545 mm² and 13,600 million transistors, for a density of only 25.0M per mm². This is a fundamental architectural difference that explains much of the performance gap in modern workloads.

Clock speeds are also very different. The Arc B570 runs at a flat 2500 MHz for both base and boost, while the Quadro RTX 4000 has a base clock of 1005 MHz and a boost of 1545 MHz. Despite the Quadro's higher memory bandwidth (416.0 GB/s vs 380.0 GB/s) and wider 256-bit bus (versus 160-bit), the Intel card's much higher clock speeds and newer architecture allow it to win most compute and modern API tests.

Memory configuration differs: the Arc B570 has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, while the Quadro has 8 GB on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro's memory runs at 13 Gbps effective, while the Arc's runs at 19 Gbps effective. The Arc also has a higher pixel rate (200.0 GPixel/s vs 98.88 GPixel/s) and texture rate (360.0 GTexel/s vs 222.5 GTexel/s), while FP32 compute is 11.52 TFLOPS for Intel versus 7.119 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Form factor and interface also differ: the Arc B570 is a dual-slot 272 mm card with PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro RTX 4000 is a single-slot 241 mm card with PCIe 3.0 x16. The Quadro's display outputs are 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, while the Arc offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. Both use a single 8-pin power connector and share a 450 W suggested PSU, with TDPs of 150 W (Intel) and 160 W (NVIDIA).

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc B570 uses the BMG-G21 chip with the Xe2-HPG architecture, belonging to the Battlemage generation (Arc 5). It has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 18 ray tracing cores. The card does not list tensor cores in the database. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip with the Turing architecture, from the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. It also has 2304 shading units and 144 TMUs, but only 64 ROPs, and it has 36 ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores.

The presence of 288 tensor cores in the Quadro is a notable difference, even though no tensor-specific benchmark results are in the data. The Arc B570's 18 RT cores versus the Quadro's 36 is also a significant architectural distinction, though the Intel card still wins the one ray-tracing-adjacent test (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12) by a wide margin. The Arc's higher ROP count (80 vs 64) contributes to its much higher pixel rate.

The process node difference is the most profound architectural gap: 5 nm versus 12 nm. This allows the Intel chip to pack more transistors into a smaller die with far higher density. The Arc B570 is still in active production, while the Quadro RTX 4000 is end-of-life. The release dates reflect this: the Arc launched in January 2025, while the Quadro launched in November 2018. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload priorities. For anyone working with modern APIs, DX12 games, Vulkan applications, or GPU compute tasks, the Intel Arc B570 is the stronger card. Its 41.4% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 22.8% lead in GeekBench Vulkan are decisive, and its compute wins across OpenCL and PassMark GPU Compute are consistent. The Arc B570 sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 20556, compared to the Quadro's 61st percentile and 17789 average score.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is not without merit. Its wins in DirectX 9, 10, and 11, plus the 2D test, make it a viable option for legacy software environments. The 6.1% lead in PassMark G3D also suggests that in a mixed bag of 3D workloads, it can still hold its own. The Quadro's 288 tensor cores are present in the hardware, though the database does not include benchmark results that isolate this capability.

The Quadro's single-slot form factor and shorter length (241 mm vs 272 mm) may also be practical advantages in space-constrained systems, though no performance metric in the data reflects this. The Arc B570 has a higher memory capacity (10 GB vs 8 GB), which could matter for larger textures or datasets, even though the Quadro has higher bandwidth.

In summary, the Arc B570 is the pick for modern and forward-looking workloads, with its average benchmark score being 15.6% higher than the Quadro's. The Quadro RTX 4000 remains relevant for legacy API compatibility and specific professional 2D or older 3D tasks, but the data shows the Intel card is the superior choice for the vast majority of current and future applications.