Intel Arc Pro A30M vs NVIDIA P104-100 Comparison

The NVIDIA P104-100 and Intel Arc Pro A30M are both end-of-life professional graphics solutions, but they represent radically different design philosophies. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, yet the surrounding specifications reveal two products built for entirely separate purposes. The P104-100, a mining-era relic, leads in raw compute, while the Arc Pro A30M counters with modern features and efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA P104-100 scores 52,368 points, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M manages 31,894 points. This translates to a 64.2% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a massive gap that overshadows any other metric. For context, the P104-100's nearest rivals in the overall database sit within a narrow band: the NVIDIA T600 Mobile averages 32,849 (0.4% behind), the T550 Mobile averages 33,161 (0.5% ahead), and the RTX 3050 Mobile averages 33,170 (0.6% ahead). The Arc Pro A30M, by contrast, trades blows with the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (0.7% ahead), the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (1.1% behind), and the AMD FirePro S10000 (1.5% behind).

The 64.2% delta is not a marginal victory; it is a generational chasm in raw compute throughput. The P104-100's FP32 performance of 6.655 TFLOPS dwarfs the Arc Pro A30M's 4.096 TFLOPS, explaining the OpenCL result. However, this single test paints an incomplete picture. The Arc Pro A30M has no 3DMark Steel Nomad score in the data, and the P104-100 lacks a matching Vulkan result for the Intel card, so the comparison rests entirely on this one compute workload. The P104-100 also holds a Geekbench Vulkan score of 45,165, but without an equivalent Arc result, it cannot be used for direct comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA P104-100 wins unequivocally in compute-heavy tasks. Its 64.2% OpenCL lead is backed by superior raw resources: 1,920 shading units against 1,024, 120 texture units against 64, and 64 ROPs against 32. The pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 208.0 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s reinforce this dominance. For any workload that relies on parallel floating-point math—scientific simulation, rendering, or data processing—the P104-100 is the clear choice based on benchmark data.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M wins in architectural modernity and feature support. It carries 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, which the P104-100 lacks entirely. Its DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2), compared to the P104-100's 12 (12_1), making it the only one of the two compliant with the latest graphics feature levels. The Arc also boasts FP16 performance of 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a staggering 78x advantage over the P104-100's 104.0 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). This suggests the Intel card is dramatically better suited for AI inference or any workload leveraging half-precision arithmetic. The Arc Pro A30M also operates at a 50 W TDP, while the P104-100's power draw is unspecified but requires a 200 W suggested power supply and a single 8-pin connector—implying a substantially hungrier component.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the NVIDIA P104-100 is the compute brute, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M is the efficiency-and-features specialist. For users prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput, the P104-100's 64.2% lead is decisive. Its 77th percentile ranking versus the Arc's 76th is nearly identical overall, but the P104-100's average benchmark score of 32,982 is actually higher than the Arc's 31,894—a 3.4% difference that contradicts the head-to-head margin. This discrepancy arises because the P104-100's average includes its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,413 and Vulkan score of 45,165, while the Arc only has the OpenCL result.

The Arc Pro A30M is the pick for modern API compatibility and ray tracing. Its 8 RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and 2:1 FP16 ratio make it future-proof for applications that leverage these features. The 6 nm TSMC process (versus 16 nm) and 50 W TDP make it far more suitable for portable or power-constrained devices, as reflected in its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. The P104-100, with no display outputs at all, is a mining artifact—it cannot drive a monitor and exists solely for compute. The Arc, despite its lower raw scores, is a professional mobile GPU. The verdict is simple: pick the P104-100 for raw compute, pick the Arc Pro A30M for anything requiring modern features, ray tracing, or low power consumption.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P104-100 averages 32,982 points, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M averages 31,894 points, a difference of about 3.4%.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The P104-100 scores 52,368 versus the Arc Pro A30M's 31,894, giving the NVIDIA card a 64.2% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro A30M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it includes 8 ray tracing cores, which the NVIDIA P104-100 lacks entirely.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both have 4 GB, but the P104-100 uses GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 320.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Arc Pro A30M uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M delivers 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA P104-100 provides only 104.0 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a massive 78x difference.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Arc Pro A30M has a stated 50 W TDP and no power connectors, while the P104-100 requires a 200 W suggested power supply and a single 8-pin connector, indicating a much higher consumption.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and processes. The NVIDIA P104-100 uses the GP104 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm TSMC process. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. It also contains 7,200 million transistors but fits them into a much smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a density of 45.9M per mm²—exactly double the P104-100's density.

The memory subsystems are radically different. The P104-100 uses 4 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 320.3 GB/s bandwidth with memory clocked at 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective). The Arc Pro A30M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s bandwidth with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The P104-100 has a 2.5x bandwidth advantage, but the Arc's faster memory clock partially compensates for its narrow bus.

Compute resources differ starkly: the P104-100 has 1,920 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the Arc Pro A30M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA card also leads in pixel rate (110.9 GPixel/s vs 64.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (208.0 GTexel/s vs 128.0 GTexel/s). The Arc counters with 8 RT cores and a superior FP16 ratio (2:1 vs 1:64). The P104-100's base clock is 1607 MHz with a 1733 MHz boost, while the Arc starts at 1500 MHz and boosts to 2000 MHz—a 267 MHz higher peak.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Pascal (GP104) vs Xe-HPG (DG2-128)
• Process Node: 16 nm vs 6 nm (both TSMC)
• Die Size: 314 mm² vs 157 mm²
• Transistor Density: 22.9M / mm² vs 45.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1607 MHz vs 1500 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1733 MHz vs 2000 MHz
• Memory Type: GDDR5X vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 320.3 GB/s vs 128.0 GB/s
• Memory Clock: 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) vs 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
• Shading Units: 1920 vs 1024
• Texture Mapping Units: 120 vs 64
• Render Output Units: 64 vs 32
• Ray Tracing Cores: None vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 110.9 GPixel/s vs 64.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 208.0 GTexel/s vs 128.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 6.655 TFLOPS vs 4.096 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 104.0 GFLOPS (1:64) vs 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: Not specified vs 50 W
• Power Connectors: 1x 8-pin vs None
• Suggested PSU: 200 W vs None
• Bus Interface: PCIe 1.0 x4 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: No outputs vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Release Date: 2017-12-11 vs 2022-08-07
• Generation: Mining GPUs vs Alchemist (Pro-Series Mobile)