Intel UHD Graphics 730 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A400 and Intel UHD Graphics 730 occupy opposite ends of the graphics spectrum, and the data reflects that clearly. The RTX A400 is a discrete workstation card built on Ampere architecture, while the UHD 730 is an integrated processor graphics solution from Rocket Lake. Across the two shared benchmarks, the RTX A400 wins both decisively, but the UHD 730's role as a low-power IGP means its purpose is fundamentally different. This analysis breaks down where each part makes sense based strictly on benchmark results and architectural specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in every measurable compute scenario available in the data. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A400 scores 22,844 against the UHD 730's 5,988, a 281.5% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A400 scores 22,237 versus 5,870, a 278.8% lead. These are not marginal differences; the discrete card is in a different performance class entirely. The A400 also holds a 35th percentile ranking among all GPUs, compared to the UHD 730's 33rd percentile, reinforcing that even the entry-level workstation card sits above the integrated solution in aggregate performance.

Where the UHD 730 "wins" is in platform integration and power draw. It is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, whereas the A400 is a single-slot card with a 50 W TDP. The Intel solution requires no power connectors and uses system-shared memory, making it a zero-cost addition to any Rocket Lake processor. Its 300 MHz base and 1,300 MHz boost clocks are modest, but they are sufficient for basic display output and light 2D workloads. The UHD 730's end-of-life production status and 33rd percentile ranking indicate it is not a competitive compute part, but its low power envelope and integrated nature give it a clear niche in office PCs and HTPCs.

For anyone needing actual graphics compute, the RTX A400 is the only choice between the two. Its 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs dwarf the UHD 730's 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The A400 also brings dedicated RT cores (6) and Tensor cores (24), features the Intel IGP lacks entirely. The data shows the A400 producing 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 against the UHD 730's 499.2 GFLOPS, a 5.4x raw compute advantage. In every benchmark, the A400 wins; the UHD 730 only "wins" by not requiring a discrete slot or extra power.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA RTX A400 if you need any form of accelerated graphics, compute, or modern API support. Its Geekbench scores are roughly 3.8x higher than the UHD 730 in both OpenCL and Vulkan. The A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the UHD 730 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). It also has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel part shares system memory with unspecified bandwidth. The A400's 35th percentile ranking and 6,078 average benchmark score place it near the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077, 0% delta) and AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, 1% delta), making it a usable entry-level discrete option.

Pick the Intel UHD Graphics 730 only if you have no discrete GPU option and need basic display output. Its 5,929 average benchmark score and 33rd percentile rank put it near the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5,955, -0.4% delta) and NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5,957, -0.5% delta). The UHD 730 is end-of-life, but it draws just 15 W and fits on the Ring Bus, making it invisible in terms of system cost and complexity. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it can drive modern desktop environments, but its 499.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance severely limits any 3D workload.

The verdict is straightforward: the A400 is a real GPU, and the UHD 730 is a display adapter. The data shows no scenario where the Intel part outperforms the NVIDIA card in compute. However, if your workload is purely 2D desktop rendering or video playback, the UHD 730's lower power draw and zero-slot footprint might be preferable. For anything else, the A400's 281.5% OpenCL lead and 278.8% Vulkan lead make it the only rational choice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two shared benchmark results exist, and the RTX A400 dominates both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A400 scores 22,844 against the UHD 730's 5,988. The delta is 281.5%, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers nearly four times the compute throughput. This is consistent with the raw specifications: the A400 has 768 shading units versus 192, a 4x difference in core count, and its FP32 throughput of 2.706 TFLOPS is 5.4x the UHD 730's 499.2 GFLOPS. The memory subsystem also favors the A400 with 96.00 GB/s dedicated bandwidth versus the Intel part's system-shared, system-dependent bandwidth.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A400 scores 22,237 and the UHD 730 scores 5,870, a 278.8% delta. The slightly smaller margin compared to OpenCL likely reflects driver overhead differences, but the outcome is equally one-sided. The A400's Vulkan 1.4 API support matches the UHD 730's Vulkan 1.4, but the underlying hardware is vastly different. The A400's 6 RT cores and 24 Tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for ray tracing and AI workloads that the UHD 730 simply cannot execute. Its 28.19 GPixel/s pixel rate and 42.29 GTexel/s texture rate compare to the Intel part's 10.40 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s, translating to 2.7x and 2.7x advantages respectively.

The head-to-head data shows a total of 2 wins for the A400 and 0 for the UHD 730. While the benchmark suite is limited, the margin of victory is so large that additional testing would likely show the same pattern. The A400's average benchmark score of 6,078 versus the UHD 730's 5,929 is closer, but that average includes tests where the A400's Passmark scores (e.g., 5,983 in G3D, 2,557 in GPU compute) pull its average down relative to its Geekbench results. The UHD 730 has no Passmark scores in the data, so its average relies solely on the two Geekbench tests, which are its weakest showing relative to the A400.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400. It delivers 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 against the Intel UHD 730's 499.2 GFLOPS, a 5.4x difference. The A400 also has 768 shading units versus 192.

Q: Does the Intel UHD 730 support ray tracing?

A: No. The UHD 730 has no RT cores or Tensor cores in its specification. The RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores and 24 Tensor cores.

Q: What is the performance gap in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,237, and the UHD 730 scores 5,870. The A400 leads by 278.8%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The RTX A400 ranks in the 35th percentile among all GPUs, while the UHD 730 ranks in the 33rd percentile. The A400's average benchmark score is 6,078 versus 5,929.

Q: Is the UHD 730 still in production?

A: No. The UHD 730 is marked as end-of-life, while the RTX A400 is active in production.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The UHD 730 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A400 is built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture using the GA107 chip, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. It packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The UHD 730 uses Intel's Generation 12.1 architecture (Rocket Lake) on a 14 nm+++ process, with no transistor or die size data available. The A400's Ampere generation is "Workstation Ampere (Ax000)," while the Intel part is classified as "HD Graphics (Rocket Lake)." The A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the UHD 730 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1), meaning the NVIDIA card supports newer rendering features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading.

The RTX A400 includes hardware RT cores and Tensor cores, which the UHD 730 lacks entirely. This gives the A400 dedicated acceleration for ray-traced workloads and AI inference, while the Intel IGP must rely on general-purpose shader execution. The A400's FP16 performance is 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), whereas the UHD 730's FP16 is 998.4 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), indicating the NVIDIA card can handle compute tasks at full precision across both formats. The A400's texture rate of 42.29 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s are both roughly 2.7x higher than the UHD 730's 15.60 GTexel/s and 10.40 GPixel/s.

The A400 is a discrete card with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the UHD 730 connects via the Ring Bus as an integrated solution. The A400's memory is dedicated GDDR6, whereas the UHD 730 shares system memory, making its bandwidth "System Dependent" per the data. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the A400's newer architecture and hardware features give it a broader feature set. The UHD 730's 14 nm+++ process is older than the A400's 8 nm node, explaining the large difference in transistor density and power efficiency despite the A400 having more transistors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RTX A400 has a base clock of 1,417 MHz and boost clock of 1,762 MHz, while the UHD 730 runs at 300 MHz base and 1,300 MHz boost. The A400's memory is 4 GB GDDR6 at 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The UHD 730's memory is system-shared with no dedicated size, type, bus width, or bandwidth figure beyond "System Dependent." The A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the UHD 730 has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The A400 includes 6 RT cores and 24 Tensor cores; the UHD 730 has neither.

The A400's FP32 performance is 2.706 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is the same 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1). The UHD 730's FP32 is 499.2 GFLOPS, and its FP16 is 998.4 GFLOPS (2:1). The A400 has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The UHD 730 has a 15 W TDP, no power connectors listed, and no suggested PSU. The A400 is single-slot with dimensions of 163 mm length and 69 mm height, while the UHD 730 is an IGP with no dimensions listed. The A400 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the UHD 730's display outputs are motherboard-dependent.

The A400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, and the UHD 730 uses the Ring Bus. The A400's production status is "Active," released on 2024-04-15, while the UHD 730 is "End-of-life," released on 2021-03-29. The A400's predecessor is Quadro Turing, and its successor is Workstation Ada; the UHD 730 has no predecessor or successor listed. The A400's pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s and texture rate is 42.29 GTexel/s, against the UHD 730's 10.40 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP in the data, so no pricing information is available.