Intel Arc Pro A30M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between the Intel Arc Pro A30M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisively lopsided. The RTX 3090 records a score of 172,758, while the Arc Pro A30M manages 31,894. This yields a delta of -81.5% for the Intel part, meaning the RTX 3090 outperforms the A30M by a factor of roughly 5.4x in raw compute throughput.

To put the A30M's score into context, it sits at the 76th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN RTX at 31,676 (a 0.7% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro 570X at 32,176 (-0.9%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell at 31,532 (1.1%), and the AMD FirePro S10000 at 32,388 (-1.5%). These deltas are all within 1.5% of the A30M's score, indicating that the Intel part is clustered tightly with a group of mid-range professional cards from several generations ago. The A30M is not a slouch; it is simply operating in a different performance tier.

The RTX 3090, by contrast, holds the 73rd percentile overall, which is slightly lower than the A30M's percentile despite its massive OpenCL lead. This percentile discrepancy is explained by the fact that percentiles reflect the entire benchmark suite, not just one test. The RTX 3090's average benchmark score across all tests is 27,565, which is dragged down by several low DirectX and PassMark scores (e.g., 110 in PassMark DirectX 12, 182 in PassMark DirectX 10, 220 in PassMark DirectX 11, 268 in PassMark DirectX 9). Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile at 27,435 (0.5%), the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT at 27,425 (0.5%), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 at 27,839 (-1%), and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M at 27,883 (-1.1%). These are all modern or recent parts, and the RTX 3090 sits comfortably among them despite being from an earlier generation.

The head-to-head data shows exactly one test, and the RTX 3090 wins that test outright. There are zero wins for the A30M and one win for the RTX 3090 in the direct comparison. It is importantly the A30M has only one benchmark entry in the entire database (the Geekbench OpenCL test), while the RTX 3090 has ten entries spanning multiple API generations. This asymmetry means the head-to-head is narrow, but the OpenCL result is unambiguous: the RTX 3090 is in a different league for compute workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 wins in every measurable category where both parts have scores. The OpenCL test is the only shared benchmark, and the RTX 3090 dominates it. Beyond that, the RTX 3090 has additional benchmark results that the A30M lacks entirely, covering DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, Vulkan, and compute via PassMark. The A30M has no entries for those tests, so no comparison is possible there.

For the RTX 3090, its strongest results come from modern APIs: 3DMark Steel Nomad (DirectX 12) at 5,118, Geekbench Vulkan at 53,927, and PassMark G3D at 26,645. Its PassMark GPU Compute score of 15,356 also indicates strong general-purpose compute performance. The A30M, with its single OpenCL score of 31,894, cannot match any of these in raw throughput, and the RTX 3090's OpenCL result is more than five times higher.

The A30M's advantages are not visible in the benchmark data. However, its specifications suggest it is designed for a different role. It has a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which points to a low-power, mobile workstation part. The RTX 3090, in contrast, has a 350 W TDP, a 1x 12-pin power connector, a suggested PSU of 750 W, and a triple-slot cooler. The A30M is also marked as "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs, meaning it is meant for embedded or laptop use, whereas the RTX 3090 has fixed outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a).

In terms of use cases, the RTX 3090 wins for any compute-heavy task: rendering, simulation, machine learning inference, or high-resolution gaming. The A30M, with its 4 GB memory capacity and 128 GB/s bandwidth, is suited only to light workloads or tasks where power efficiency is paramount. The data shows no scenario, based on available benchmarks, where the A30M comes out ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectures, foundries, and process nodes. The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses the Xe-HPG architecture (chip DG2-128) on a 6 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 uses the Ampere architecture (chip GA102) on an 8 nm Samsung process. The transistor counts differ enormously: the A30M has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, while the RTX 3090 packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die. Interestingly, the transistor density is nearly identical: 45.9M per mm² for the A30M and 45.1M per mm² for the RTX 3090. This suggests Intel and NVIDIA were both density-limited at their respective nodes.

The core configurations are drastically different. The A30M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The RTX 3090 has 10,496 shading units, 328 TMUs, 112 ROPs, and 82 RT cores. The RTX 3090 also has 328 tensor cores, which the A30M lacks entirely (the field is null). This alone explains a significant portion of the compute gap: the RTX 3090 has over 10x the shading units and 10x the RT cores.

Clock speeds and memory also diverge. The A30M runs at a 1500 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The RTX 3090 runs at 1395 MHz base and 1695 MHz boost, with memory at 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). Despite lower clocks, the RTX 3090's massive core count gives it overwhelming throughput: 35.58 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the A30M. The FP16 figures also differ: the A30M achieves 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the RTX 3090 achieves 35.58 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The RTX 3090's pixel rate is 189.8 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the A30M, and its texture rate is 556.0 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations are similarly lopsided. The A30M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3090 has 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, yielding 936.2 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 7.3x difference in bandwidth and a 6x difference in capacity. The bus interface also differs: the A30M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RTX 3090 uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the RTX 3090 has a much larger physical footprint: 336 mm length, 140 mm height, 61 mm width, versus the A30M's unspecified dimensions. The RTX 3090 is triple-slot, while the A30M's slot width is not recorded. The production status for both is end-of-life, with release dates of August 2022 for the A30M and August 2020 for the RTX 3090.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is the superior performer in every benchmark where both parts have scores. The OpenCL result alone (172,758 vs 31,894, a -81.5% delta) shows a 5.4x gap in compute throughput. The RTX 3090 also offers 24 GB of memory versus 4 GB, 936.2 GB/s bandwidth versus 128.0 GB/s, and 35.58 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.096 TFLOPS. For any workload that relies on raw GPU compute, the RTX 3090 is the clear choice.

However, the A30M is not without its niche. Its 50 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs make it suitable for compact, low-power systems where the RTX 3090's 350 W TDP and triple-slot cooler are physically impossible. The A30M's transistor density (45.9M per mm²) is actually slightly higher than the RTX 3090's (45.1M per mm²), suggesting Intel achieved comparable design efficiency on a smaller scale. The A30M also has a higher boost clock (2000 MHz vs 1695 MHz), which indicates it can run at higher frequencies when power and thermal headroom allow.

For a benchmark database, the choice depends on the workload. If the goal is maximum performance in OpenCL, DirectX, or Vulkan, the RTX 3090 wins outright. If the goal is energy-efficient compute in a mobile or embedded form factor, the A30M is the only viable option among the two, given the RTX 3090's physical requirements. The RTX 3090's launch MSRP was 1,499 USD, while the A30M has no recorded MSRP, but that is the only pricing information available and does not change the performance analysis.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 scores 172,758, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M scores 31,894. The RTX 3090 is 81.5% higher, meaning it is roughly 5.4x faster in this test.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro A30M win any benchmark against the RTX 3090?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the A30M and one win for the RTX 3090 in the head-to-head comparison. The only shared test is Geekbench OpenCL, which the RTX 3090 wins.

Q: How does the memory capacity and bandwidth compare?

A: The A30M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3090 has 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, providing 936.2 GB/s bandwidth, which is 7.3x higher.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for both GPUs?

A: The A30M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32, while the RTX 3090 delivers 35.58 TFLOPS FP32. The RTX 3090 is roughly 8.7x faster in FP32 throughput.

Q: Are there any architectural similarities between the two?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Their transistor densities are also similar: 45.9M per mm² for the A30M and 45.1M per mm² for the RTX 3090, despite different process nodes (6 nm TSMC vs 8 nm Samsung).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The A30M has a 50 W TDP with no power connectors, while the RTX 3090 has a 350 W TDP with a 1x 12-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 750 W. The A30M is designed for low-power systems, whereas the RTX 3090 requires a substantial power supply and cooling.