Intel Arc Pro A30M vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 and Intel Arc Pro A30M are both 50 W workstation-class graphics solutions, but they occupy very different corners of the market. The A1000 is a desktop card built on NVIDIA’s mature Ampere architecture, while the A30M is a mobile-first part from Intel’s Alchemist generation. Benchmark data reveals a clear overall winner in raw compute, but the architectural split between the two makes them suitable for different workloads. The A1000 holds a 63.3% lead in the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and posts a higher average benchmark score of 34207 against the A30M’s 31894. However, the A30M counters with a higher pixel rate and texture rate, suggesting that its design priorities differ from the A1000’s compute-focused approach.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins decisively in general-purpose compute and API-level performance. In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, the A1000 scores 52078, which is 63.3% higher than the A30M’s 31894. This is a massive margin that reflects the A1000’s larger shader count (2304 vs 1024), higher FP32 throughput (6.737 TFLOPS vs 4.096 TFLOPS), and greater memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s vs 128.0 GB/s). The A1000 also achieves a 79th percentile ranking among all GPUs, compared to the A30M’s 76th percentile, reinforcing its position as the stronger overall performer.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M, despite losing the compute battle, wins in specific rasterization-oriented metrics. Its pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s is 36.8% higher than the A1000’s 46.78 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s exceeds the A1000’s 105.3 GTexel/s by 21.6%. These figures suggest that the A30M is engineered for fill-rate-bound workloads, such as high-resolution display output or pixel-heavy 2D/3D rendering tasks, where its higher clock speeds (2000 MHz boost vs 1462 MHz boost) can be leveraged more effectively. The A30M also delivers higher FP16 performance at 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which is 21.6% above the A1000’s 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), making it potentially better suited for workloads that can utilize reduced precision.

The A1000’s victory in the only direct benchmark, combined with its higher average score, makes it the clear choice for compute-driven applications. The A30M’s niche is narrower: it wins on raw pixel and texture throughput, but those advantages do not translate into a win in OpenCL, where the A1000’s superior memory subsystem and shader count dominate.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The A1000 is built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm Samsung process, with a die size of 200 mm² and 8,700 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M / mm². The A30M uses Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture (Alchemist generation), fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process, with a smaller die of 157 mm² and 7,200 million transistors, resulting in a slightly higher transistor density of 45.9M / mm².

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The A1000 offers 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A30M has only 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, halving the bus width and cutting bandwidth to 128.0 GB/s. This 64 GB/s difference is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures, where the A1000 has a clear advantage.

Compute resources are also lopsided. The A1000 features 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 18 RT cores, and 72 tensor cores. The A30M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. The A1000’s tensor cores are a significant architectural feature, enabling AI-accelerated workloads that the A30M cannot handle at the hardware level. The RT core count also favors the A1000 (18 vs 8), suggesting better ray-tracing performance, though no direct ray-tracing benchmark is available in the data.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The A30M runs at a base clock of 1500 MHz and boosts to 2000 MHz, while the A1000 operates at a much lower 727 MHz base and 1462 MHz boost. The A30M’s higher clocks help it achieve superior pixel and texture rates, but they do not compensate for the A1000’s larger execution units in compute-heavy tests. Both cards support PCIe 4.0 x8 and feature identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Power and physical design also differ. Both are rated at 50 W TDP, but the A1000 is a single-slot desktop card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a 250 W suggested PSU. The A30M is a mobile part with no fixed dimensions and display outputs that are portable-device dependent. The A1000’s production status is Active, while the A30M is End-of-life, reflecting their respective release dates of April 2024 and August 2022.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA RTX A1000 scores 52078 against the Intel Arc Pro A30M’s 31894. This yields a delta of 63.3% in favor of the A1000, a dominant margin that underscores the A1000’s superior compute architecture. The A1000’s score is driven by its 2304 shading units and 6.737 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, which are 2.25x and 1.64x higher than the A30M’s respective figures. The A1000 also benefits from 50% more memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s vs 128.0 GB/s), which helps feed its larger shader array more effectively.

The A30M’s only redeeming benchmark metrics are its fill rates. Its 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is 36.8% higher than the A1000’s 46.78 GPixel/s, and its 128.0 GTexel/s texture rate beats the A1000’s 105.3 GTexel/s by 21.6%. These are theoretical peak rates, not application-level scores, but they indicate that the A30M can push pixels faster when the workload is fill-rate-bound. In FP16 compute, the A30M’s 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) exceeds the A1000’s 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1) by 21.6%, suggesting an advantage in mixed-precision workloads that can exploit the 2:1 ratio.

Average benchmark scores place the A1000 at 34207, which is 7.3% higher than the A30M’s 31894. The A1000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (delta 0.2%), AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (delta 0.2%), NVIDIA TITAN V (delta -0.4%), and AMD Radeon RX 480 (delta 0.6%). The A30M’s rivals are the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (delta 0.7%), AMD Radeon Pro 570X (delta -0.9%), NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (delta 1.1%), and AMD FirePro S10000 (delta -1.5%). The A1000’s rival list includes high-end cards like the TITAN V, while the A30M is compared to older pro GPUs, reflecting its lower absolute performance tier.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A1000 is the superior GPU for compute-intensive workstation tasks. Its 63.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, 7.3% higher average benchmark score, and 3-percentile advantage (79th vs 76th) make it the logical choice for professionals running CUDA-accelerated applications, machine learning inference, or any workload that stresses FP32 throughput or memory bandwidth. The A1000’s 8 GB VRAM and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth are more than double the A30M’s 4 GB and 128.0 GB/s, providing a significant buffer for large models or high-resolution textures.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M is not without merit, but its advantages are narrow. Its higher pixel rate (64.00 GPixel/s vs 46.78 GPixel/s) and texture rate (128.0 GTexel/s vs 105.3 GTexel/s) make it a better fit for fill-rate-bound tasks like 2D rendering, video compositing, or certain CAD viewport workloads where pixel throughput matters more than compute. Its higher boost clock (2000 MHz vs 1462 MHz) supports this specialization. However, the A30M’s lower shader count, half the memory bus width, and lack of tensor cores severely limit its versatility. Its End-of-life status also makes it a risky choice for new deployments, whereas the A1000 remains Active.

For users who need a desktop workstation card with broad software compatibility and strong compute performance, the A1000 is the clear winner. For mobile or embedded applications where fill-rate performance and lower precision (FP16) throughput are paramount, and where the 50 W TDP is a hard constraint, the A30M can be considered. But given the A1000’s dominance in the only direct benchmark and its higher overall ranking, the A1000 is the recommended choice for the vast majority of professional workloads.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A1000 than the Intel Arc Pro A30M in OpenCL?

A: The A1000 scores 52078 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 63.3% higher than the A30M’s 31894.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 has 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the Intel Arc Pro A30M’s 128.0 GB/s, a 50% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro A30M have any performance advantages over the A1000?

A: Yes, the A30M has a higher pixel rate (64.00 GPixel/s vs 46.78 GPixel/s) and texture rate (128.0 GTexel/s vs 105.3 GTexel/s), as well as higher FP16 throughput (8.192 TFLOPS vs 6.737 TFLOPS).

Q: What is the difference in shading units between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 has 2304 shading units, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M has 1024, a 2.25x difference in favor of the A1000.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 has 72 tensor cores, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M has no tensor cores listed.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 is listed as Active, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M is listed as End-of-life.