Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive victory for the Intel Arc A310. The Arc A310 scores 30,607 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX scores 10,723 points. That is a 65% advantage for the Intel part, a gap large enough to place them in entirely different performance tiers for compute workloads. The GeForce GTX 675MX held no recorded wins in any shared benchmark, finishing with zero head-to-head victories against one for the Arc A310.

To contextualize the OpenCL result, the database's average benchmark score reveals a tighter overall picture than the single compute test suggests. The GTX 675MX averages 8,427 points across its two recorded benchmarks, which places it at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. The Arc A310 averages 7,550 points, putting it at the 40th percentile. Despite the massive OpenCL gap, the overall averages are separated by only about 12%, and the percentile ranking is nearly identical. This indicates that while the Arc A310 is far stronger in raw compute throughput, the GTX 675MX compensates in its own benchmark suite, likely through different API performance characteristics.

The nearest rival data reinforces this split. The GTX 675MX's average score of 8,427 sits within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436) and within 0.4% of both the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458) and AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462). It is 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325). The Arc A310's average of 7,550 is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557), 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580), and 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472). Notably, the GTX 1650 is a much more modern card than the GTX 675MX, yet the Arc A310 edges it out in average score, which speaks to the Arc's efficiency at its low power envelope.

The Arc A310 also shows a broad benchmark portfolio beyond the OpenCL test. Its PassMark DirectX scores are modest, with 69 in DirectX 9, 33 in DirectX 11, 31 in DirectX 10, and 29 in DirectX 12. These low absolute numbers likely reflect the benchmark's specific workload characteristics rather than raw capability, since the Geekbench Vulkan score of 28,964 is nearly as high as the OpenCL score. The PassMark G3D score of 5,433 and G2D score of 625 provide additional reference points, and the GPU compute score of 2,157 confirms the compute-oriented strength of the architecture.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, different eras, and fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc A310 uses the DG2-128 chip with the Xe-HPG architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a much newer 6 nm node. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. That is nearly four times the density of the Kepler part, a direct consequence of the process node advancement.

The memory subsystems reflect the generational gap. The GTX 675MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, producing 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth at a 900 MHz memory clock, which translates to 3.6 Gbps effective. The Arc A310 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, but the faster memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) yields 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite having only a quarter of the bus width, the Arc A310 achieves higher total bandwidth through faster memory technology and a higher effective clock.

Compute resources are organized differently. The GTX 675MX has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Arc A310 has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has more of each of these traditional resource types, yet the Arc A310's pixel rate is higher at 28.00 GPixel/s versus 13.08 GPixel/s for the GTX 675MX. The texture rates are closer: 56.00 GTexel/s for the Arc versus 52.32 GTexel/s for the GTX, a narrow margin that shows the Kepler part's higher TMU count compensates for the clock deficit.

The FP32 compute figures tell a different story. The Arc A310 delivers 2.688 TFLOPS of FP32, more than double the GTX 675MX's 1,255.7 GFLOPS. The Arc also supports FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the GTX 675MX has no recorded FP16 capability. The Arc A310 additionally includes 6 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Kepler architecture. This is a fundamental architectural divergence: the Arc is built for modern workloads including ray tracing and compute-heavy applications, while the GTX 675MX is a traditional rasterization-focused design.

API support differs substantially. The GTX 675MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation includes features like ray tracing and mesh shaders that the older card cannot access. The Vulkan version is also significantly newer on the Intel part.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A310 wins decisively in compute performance. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 30,607 versus 10,723 is a 65% advantage, and the FP32 throughput of 2.688 TFLOPS versus 1,255.7 GFLOPS more than doubles the NVIDIA part. For applications that leverage general-purpose GPU compute, OpenCL workloads, or Vulkan compute, the Arc A310 is the clear choice. Its FP16 support at 5.376 TFLOPS adds further capability for mixed-precision workloads, something the GTX 675MX cannot offer at all.

The Arc A310 also wins in modern feature support. Ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4 give it access to contemporary graphics APIs and rendering techniques that the Kepler part cannot use. Any workload built around DX12 Ultimate features, ray tracing, or the latest Vulkan extensions will favor the Arc A310. The 4 GB of GDDR6 memory doubles the VRAM available on the GTX 675MX, which matters for texture-heavy applications and larger datasets.

The GTX 675MX wins in overall benchmark consistency. Its average score of 8,427 is 12% higher than the Arc A310's 7,550, and its 43rd percentile ranking edges out the Arc's 40th. The nearest rival comparisons show the GTX 675MX clustered with slightly faster peers (within 0.4% of the Radeon 880M and MX330), while the Arc A310 sits alongside slower ones (0.1% behind the R7 250). For general-purpose gaming and traditional rasterization, the GTX 675MX's higher average suggests it delivers more consistent performance across a broader set of workloads, even though its peak compute is far lower.

The GTX 675MX also wins on memory bus width. The 256-bit interface is four times wider than the Arc A310's 64-bit bus, which can be advantageous for certain access patterns despite the lower total bandwidth. The higher shading unit count (960 versus 768) and TMU count (80 versus 32) also favor the NVIDIA part for workloads that scale with these traditional resources, even if the newer architecture overcomes that disadvantage elsewhere.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification. Process node: 28 nm for the GTX 675MX versus 6 nm for the Arc A310. Transistor count: 3,540 million versus 7,200 million. Die size: 294 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density: 12.0M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Memory configuration: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock: 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The GTX 675MX has no recorded base or boost clock, while the Arc A310 runs at 1750 MHz for both base and boost.

Compute units: 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs for the GTX versus 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs for the Arc. The Arc has 6 ray tracing cores; the GTX has none. FP32: 1,255.7 GFLOPS versus 2.688 TFLOPS. FP16: not recorded for the GTX, 5.376 TFLOPS for the Arc. Pixel rate: 13.08 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 52.32 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s.

Power and form factor: the GTX 675MX draws 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The Arc A310 draws 30 W, is single-slot, uses PCIe 4.0 x8, and lists a suggested PSU of 200 W. Neither card requires power connectors. Display outputs: the GTX is portable device dependent, while the Arc offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.

API differences: DirectX 12 (11_0) versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.2.175 versus 1.4. Release dates: September 2012 for the GTX 675MX, October 2022 for the Arc A310. The GTX's predecessor is GeForce 500M and successor is GeForce 700M; the Arc's predecessor is Xe Graphics and successor is Battlemage. The GTX 675MX has no launch MSRP recorded, and neither does the Arc A310.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX has a higher average benchmark score of 8,427 points, compared to the Intel Arc A310's 7,550 points. The GTX 675MX also ranks at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Arc A310 ranks at the 40th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A310 in OpenCL?

A: The Arc A310 scores 30,607 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 65% higher than the GTX 675MX's 10,723. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded for both cards.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A310 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A310 includes 6 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The GTX 675MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A310 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus but achieves 124.0 GB/s bandwidth due to a higher memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Arc A310 delivers 2.688 TFLOPS of FP32, more than double the GTX 675MX's 1,255.7 GFLOPS. The Arc also offers FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS, which the GTX 675MX does not record.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 675MX has a TDP of 100 W, while the Arc A310 has a TDP of 30 W. The Arc A310 lists a suggested PSU of 200 W, and neither card requires power connectors. The GTX uses an MXM Module form factor, while the Arc is single-slot with PCIe 4.0 x8.