Intel Arc Pro A30M vs NVIDIA A2 Comparison

NVIDIA A2 and Intel Arc Pro A30M represent two distinct approaches to professional mobile and low-profile computing, with the A2 built on a mature Ampere architecture and the Arc Pro A30M introducing Intel’s Xe-HPG design. The benchmark data shows a narrow but consistent lead for the NVIDIA A2, which scores 10.9% higher than the Intel part in the sole Geekbench OpenCL test, yet the two cards occupy nearly identical performance percentiles at 79 and 76, respectively. This close positioning makes the architectural and specification differences more decisive than raw speed for most use cases.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA A2 is built on the GA107 chip using Samsung’s 8 nm process, packing 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Pro A30M, by contrast, uses the DG2-128 chip fabricated on TSMC’s 6 nm node, with 7,200 million transistors on a smaller 157 mm² die, yielding a slightly higher density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser Intel die does not translate into a performance advantage in the available data, suggesting architectural efficiency differences matter more than process metrics.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity is complete. The A2 leverages NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture with 1,280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, 10 ray tracing cores, and 40 tensor cores. The Arc Pro A30M fields 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores, but notably lists no tensor core count. The shading unit deficit for Intel is offset by double the TMU count, which explains its higher texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s versus the A2’s 70.80 GTexel/s.

Clock behavior also diverges sharply. The A2 runs at a 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, while the Arc Pro A30M operates at 1500 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost. Despite Intel’s higher clocks, the A2 achieves slightly better FP32 throughput at 4.531 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS, indicating the A2’s per-clock execution is more efficient. FP16 performance tells a different story: the A2 delivers 4.531 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Arc Pro A30M reaches 8.192 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, making Intel’s card markedly stronger for workloads that can exploit reduced precision.

Memory configurations are another fundamental split. The A2 ships with 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 200.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro A30M has only 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, capping bandwidth at 128.0 GB/s. This fourfold capacity difference and 56% bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA are likely decisive for large datasets or multi-application workloads. Power envelopes differ as well, with the A2 rated at 60 W TDP and the Arc Pro A30M at 50 W, though the Intel part’s mobile orientation is reflected in its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs versus the A2’s "No outputs."

Where Each One Wins

The A2 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, posting 35,357 in Geekbench OpenCL against 31,894 for the Arc Pro A30M, a 10.9% margin. This advantage aligns with its 79th percentile ranking versus Intel’s 76th, and it also holds an edge in average benchmark score at 34,690 versus 31,894. For compute-heavy tasks that rely on FP32 or memory capacity, the A2’s larger framebuffer and higher bandwidth make it the more capable option, particularly for inference workloads or rendering scenes that exceed 4 GB.

The Arc Pro A30M counters in specific sub-domains. Its FP16 throughput of 8.192 TFLOPS is nearly double the A2’s 4.531 TFLOPS, which could benefit AI inference or certain compute shaders that use half-precision arithmetic. Its texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s is also 81% higher than the A2’s, a potential advantage for texture-bound graphics workloads. The higher boost clock of 2000 MHz and the 2:1 FP16 ratio suggest Intel designed this part for throughput in mixed-precision scenarios, even if the OpenCL result does not reflect that specialization.

Pixel fill rates are close, with the Arc Pro A30M at 64.00 GPixel/s slightly ahead of the A2’s 56.64 GPixel/s. Neither card has a decisive edge in raw rasterization, but the Intel part’s higher pixel rate could matter for resolution-independent passes. The A2’s 16 GB memory capacity, however, is a qualitative leap — it can hold four times more data locally, avoiding PCIe traffic that would bottleneck the 4 GB Intel card in memory-intensive tasks.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but conditional recommendation. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA A2 is the safer choice, delivering 10.9% higher scores and a 79th percentile ranking that places it in the top quarter of all GPUs. Its 16 GB memory capacity is unmatched in this comparison and directly addresses the most common professional bottleneck: running out of VRAM. The A2 also edges out its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB at 0.4% higher and the RTX A1000 at 1.4% higher, showing it sits at the top of its immediate competitive cluster.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M is not without merit, but its case rests on specifications rather than benchmark results. Its 76th percentile and average score of 31,894 place it within 0.7% of the NVIDIA TITAN RTX and 1.1% of the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, indicating respectable performance for its class. The 2:1 FP16 ratio and higher texture throughput suggest workloads optimized for Intel’s architecture could see different outcomes, but the available Geekbench OpenCL test does not capture that advantage. For general-purpose professional use, the A2’s combination of higher compute score, larger memory, and established ecosystem makes it the default pick. The Arc Pro A30M is a niche alternative for environments that value FP16 density or lower power draw, but the data cannot substantiate a broader recommendation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA A2 scores 35,357 against 31,894 for the Intel Arc Pro A30M. The 10.9% delta is the only direct performance comparison available, and it favors the A2 across the board. This margin is consistent with the A2’s average benchmark score of 34,690, which is 8.8% higher than Intel’s 31,894, and its 79th percentile ranking versus 76th.

Contextualizing the A2’s win, its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB at 34,561 (0.4% behind), the AMD Radeon HD 7970 at 34,541 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA TITAN V at 34,355 (1% behind). This places the A2 at the top of a tight cluster, where a fraction of a percent separates it from several established cards. The Arc Pro A30M’s rivals, meanwhile, include the AMD Radeon Pro 570X at 32,176 (0.9% ahead of Intel), the NVIDIA TITAN RTX at 31,676 (0.7% behind), and the AMD FirePro S10000 at 32,388 (1.5% ahead). Intel’s card sits in the middle of its cluster, with no single rival more than 1.5% away in either direction.

The most striking implication is the A2’s margin despite its lower boost clock. The A2 runs at 1770 MHz boost versus Intel’s 2000 MHz, yet produces 10.9% higher OpenCL scores. This suggests the A2’s Ampere architecture extracts more useful work per clock, or that the Geekbench workload is sensitive to the A2’s memory bandwidth advantage of 200.1 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. The Intel card’s higher texture rate and FP16 potential do not manifest in this test, reinforcing that OpenCL benchmarks often favor traditional FP32 compute paths.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A2 scores 35,357 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 10.9% higher than the Intel Arc Pro A30M’s 31,894.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The NVIDIA A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M has 4 GB, a fourfold difference in capacity.

Q: Does the Intel card have any compute advantage?

A: Yes, the Arc Pro A30M delivers 8.192 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio, compared to the A2’s 4.531 TFLOPS at 1:1, making Intel’s part stronger for half-precision workloads.

Q: What are their performance percentiles relative to all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA A2 ranks in the 79th percentile, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M ranks in the 76th percentile.

Q: Which card has higher texture throughput?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M achieves 128.0 GTexel/s, which is 81% higher than the NVIDIA A2’s 70.80 GTexel/s.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA A2 and Intel Arc Pro A30M have a production status of "End-of-life."

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA A2 | Intel Arc Pro A30M |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 6 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1440 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 200.1 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 40 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 10 | 8 |

| Tensor Cores | 40 | Null |

| Pixel Rate | 56.64 GPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 70.80 GTexel/s | 128.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.531 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.531 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 60 W | 50 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2021-11-09 | 2022-08-07 |