Intel Arc Pro A30M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark measurement in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X scores 41,471 points, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M scores 31,894 points. That produces a delta of 30%, with the NVIDIA part taking the win. In practical terms, this means the TITAN X delivers roughly a third more raw compute throughput in this OpenCL workload. The gap is substantial enough to place the two cards in different performance tiers, despite both being end-of-life products.

Looking at the broader database context, the TITAN X's average benchmark score sits at 36,530, which places it in the 80th percentile among all GPUs. The Arc Pro A30M averages 31,894, landing in the 76th percentile. While the percentile difference is only four points, the absolute score gap of 4,636 points is what separates them. The TITAN X's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5300M at 36,529 (0% delta), the NVIDIA T1000 at 36,289 (0.7% ahead), and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 at 37,157 (1.7% behind). The Arc Pro A30M, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA TITAN RTX at 31,676 (0.7% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 570X at 32,176 (0.9% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell at 31,532 (1.1% ahead). This shows the TITAN X is competing with higher-end workstation and mobile parts, while the Arc Pro A30M is grouped with mid-range professional offerings.

The database records one win for the TITAN X and zero for the Arc Pro A30M in head-to-head tests. That single OpenCL result is the only common benchmark between the two, so the 30% margin is the entire story for direct comparison. No other test data overlaps, which limits the scope of the comparison but does not diminish the clarity of the OpenCL outcome.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational and fundamental. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X uses the GM200 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, also from TSMC but on a 6 nm process. The process node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 6 nm, which directly impacts transistor density. The TITAN X packs 8,000 million transistors across a 601 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Arc Pro A30M contains 7,200 million transistors on a much smaller 157 mm² die, achieving 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter. That is over three times the density, a clear sign of the newer manufacturing technology.

The transistor counts are close, but the die size difference is enormous. The TITAN X's 601 mm² die is nearly four times larger than the Arc Pro A30M's 157 mm². This reflects the different design goals: the TITAN X is a desktop flagship from 2015, built for maximum throughput at high power, while the Arc Pro A30M is a mobile professional part from 2022, designed for efficiency in a constrained thermal envelope.

Compute resources differ sharply. The TITAN X has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation pipelines. The Arc Pro A30M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The TITAN X has exactly three times the shading units, three times the TMUs, and three times the ROPs. However, the Arc Pro A30M includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature the TITAN X lacks entirely, as Maxwell 2.0 predates ray tracing hardware.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The TITAN X runs at a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1089 MHz. The Arc Pro A30M runs at a base of 1500 MHz and a boost of 2000 MHz. The Intel part has a 50% higher base clock and roughly 84% higher boost clock. This partially compensates for the lower core count, but not enough to overcome the TITAN X's massive resource advantage in raw rasterization and compute.

Memory subsystems are also very different. The TITAN X uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.6 GB/s of bandwidth and an effective memory speed of 7 Gbps. The Arc Pro A30M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s and an effective speed of 16 Gbps. The TITAN X has three times the memory capacity and over 2.6 times the bandwidth. The Arc Pro A30M's GDDR6 operates at more than double the effective data rate, but the narrow bus cripples total throughput.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The TITAN X achieves 104.5 GPixel/s and 209.1 GTexel/s. The Arc Pro A30M achieves 64.00 GPixel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s. The TITAN X is 63% faster in pixel fill and 63% faster in texture fill. FP32 compute is 6.691 TFLOPS for the TITAN X versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the Arc Pro A30M, a 63% advantage. The Arc Pro A30M does offer FP16 at 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a capability the TITAN X does not have, as its FP16 is not separately listed.

Power consumption diverges wildly. The TITAN X has a TDP of 250 W, requires a 600 W suggested power supply, and uses a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector. The Arc Pro A30M has a TDP of 50 W and needs no external power connector. That is a fivefold difference in power draw, which explains why the Intel part can exist in a mobile form factor with no slot width specification and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the only shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 41,471 versus the Intel Arc Pro A30M's 31,894, a 30% delta.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The TITAN X averages 36,530 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Arc Pro A30M averages 31,894. The TITAN X sits in the 80th percentile of all GPUs, the Arc Pro A30M in the 76th.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The TITAN X has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the Arc Pro A30M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Bandwidth is 336.6 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro A30M have any architectural feature the TITAN X lacks?

A: Yes, the Arc Pro A30M has 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the TITAN X has no ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The TITAN X has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested power supply with a 6-pin and 8-pin connector. The Arc Pro A30M has a 50 W TDP and uses no external power connector.

Q: Which GPU has the higher clock speeds?

A: The Arc Pro A30M runs at 1500 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, versus the TITAN X's 1000 MHz base and 1089 MHz boost.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 28 nm for the TITAN X and 6 nm for the Arc Pro A30M. The die size is 601 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density is 13.3 million per mm² versus 45.9 million per mm². The TITAN X has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs; the Arc Pro A30M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Arc Pro A30M adds 8 ray tracing cores; the TITAN X has none.

Memory is 12 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 336.6 GB/s bandwidth for the TITAN X, versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s for the Arc Pro A30M. Effective memory speed is 7 Gbps versus 16 Gbps. Pixel rate is 104.5 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 209.1 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 6.691 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. The Arc Pro A30M lists FP16 at 8.192 TFLOPS; the TITAN X does not list FP16.

TDP is 250 W versus 50 W. The TITAN X is dual-slot with a 6-pin and 8-pin connector; the Arc Pro A30M has no slot width and no power connector. The TITAN X uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the Arc Pro A30M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 for the TITAN X; the Arc Pro A30M is portable-device-dependent. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Release dates are March 2015 versus August 2022. The TITAN X has a launch MSRP of 999 USD; the Arc Pro A30M has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X wins decisively in raw compute and rasterization. Its 30% OpenCL lead, combined with 63% higher FP32 throughput, 63% higher pixel rate, and 63% higher texture rate, makes it the clear choice for workloads that depend on massive parallel execution and high memory bandwidth. The 12 GB GDDR5 frame buffer at 336.6 GB/s is more than adequate for large datasets and high-resolution textures, and the 384-bit bus provides a bandwidth advantage that the Arc Pro A30M cannot match. For desktop workstations where power draw is not a constraint, the TITAN X is the stronger performer in every measured compute metric.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M wins in efficiency and modern feature support. Its 50 W TDP is one-fifth of the TITAN X's 250 W, making it suitable for thin mobile workstations where thermal headroom is minimal. The 6 nm process and 45.9 million transistors per mm² density show a far more modern design. The inclusion of 8 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support means the Arc Pro A30M can handle ray-traced workloads and the latest graphics API features that the TITAN X cannot. Its 2000 MHz boost clock is significantly higher, and the 2:1 FP16 performance at 8.192 TFLOPS gives it an advantage in AI and machine learning inference tasks that leverage FP16 arithmetic.

In practical terms, the TITAN X is suited for legacy desktop rendering, large-buffer compute, and any task where raw fill rate and bandwidth are paramount. The Arc Pro A30M is suited for mobile professional use cases, ray-traced visualization, and energy-conscious deployments. The database shows one benchmark win for the TITAN X and none for the Arc Pro A30M, but the feature set and power profile of the Intel part make it a valid choice for a different class of workloads. The performance difference is real and measurable, but the architectural gap reflects fifteen years of GPU evolution compressed into a single comparison.