Intel Arc Pro A30M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A and the Intel Arc Pro A30M: the Geekbench OpenCL test. This is a significant limitation, as it provides only one lens through which to view the performance relationship. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A scores 39,780, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M scores 31,894. This results in a 24.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part in this specific workload. The database shows the NVIDIA GPU winning this head-to-head contest, with one win for the MX570 A and zero for the Arc Pro A30M.

However, a broader look at the database's average benchmark scores paints a more nuanced picture. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A has an average benchmark score of 38,691, placing it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Arc Pro A30M, by contrast, has an average score of 31,894, which puts it in the 76th percentile. This means that while the NVIDIA part leads in the direct comparison, both are positioned in the upper-middle range of the performance spectrum. The gap in average scores is roughly 21%, which aligns with the 24.7% delta seen in the specific OpenCL test, suggesting that the NVIDIA part's advantage is consistent rather than isolated to a single benchmark.

Looking at their nearest rivals in the database gives additional context. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A sits in a competitive cluster. Its average score of 38,691 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro 580X, which scores 38,706, a delta of 0%. It is also nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce MX570, which scores 38,299, a delta of 1%. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile is also close, at 38,349, a delta of 0.9%. The only rival that beats it is the AMD Radeon Pro 575X, which scores 39,116, a delta of -1.1%, meaning the MX570 A is slightly behind that part. This tells us that the MX570 A is performing at the level of much more expensive and larger desktop workstation cards, which is a notable data point for a low-power mobile GPU.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M's rival cluster is similarly informative. Its average score of 31,894 is just above the NVIDIA TITAN RTX, which scores 31,676, a delta of 0.7%. It is also ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, which scores 31,532, a delta of 1.1%. The AMD Radeon Pro 570X scores 32,176, meaning the Arc Pro A30M is 0.9% behind it, and the AMD FirePro S10000 scores 32,388, putting the Intel part 1.5% behind that. This shows that the Arc Pro A30M is also competing with older flagship desktop cards, though its absolute scores are lower than the MX570 A's rival group. The data suggests that in raw compute throughput, the NVIDIA part holds a clear edge.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is built on the Ampere architecture, using the GA107SB chip, and is manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a die size of 200 mm², giving it a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a smaller die of 157 mm², resulting in a higher transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The Intel part is therefore denser, packing more transistors per area, but the NVIDIA part has more total transistors overall.

The compute configurations differ markedly. The NVIDIA GPU has 2,048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. It also includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The Intel GPU has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, along with 8 ray tracing cores. Notably, the Intel part does not list tensor cores in the database, which is a significant omission given that tensor cores are often used for AI and machine learning workloads. The NVIDIA part's shading unit count is double that of the Intel part, yet the Intel part achieves a higher pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s compared to the NVIDIA part's 36.96 GPixel/s. Similarly, the Intel part has a texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA part manages 73.92 GTexel/s. This is a curious inversion: the Intel GPU has fewer cores but higher fill rates, suggesting a different design philosophy focused on throughput per clock rather than sheer core count.

Clock speeds also tell a story. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A has a base clock of 832 MHz and a boost clock of 1155 MHz. The Intel Arc Pro A30M runs at a base of 1500 MHz and boosts to 2000 MHz. The Intel part's clocks are significantly higher, which explains how it achieves higher fill rates despite fewer cores. However, raw FP32 compute tells a different tale. The NVIDIA part delivers 4.731 TFLOPS, while the Intel part delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is about 15% ahead in FP32 throughput. In FP16, the NVIDIA part maintains 4.731 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part jumps to 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning the Intel part is far stronger in half-precision workloads.

Memory configurations also differ. The NVIDIA GPU has 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 64-bit bus, but with a higher memory clock, it achieves 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part has double the capacity and 33% more bandwidth. The memory clock is listed as 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective for NVIDIA, and 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for Intel. Power consumption is a major differentiator: the NVIDIA part has a TDP of 25 W, while the Intel part has a TDP of 50 W. The NVIDIA part is also listed as having an IGP slot width, while the Intel part has no slot width listed, suggesting different physical form factors.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A winning the only direct comparison, so its strength lies in general compute performance as measured by OpenCL. Its higher FP32 throughput of 4.731 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS suggests that it will handle single-precision compute tasks more effectively. The presence of 64 tensor cores also indicates a capability for AI-accelerated workloads, though the database does not provide specific tensor core benchmark results. For users running OpenCL-based applications, the data shows a 24.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part, which is substantial.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M, despite losing the direct benchmark, has clear wins in specific areas. Its FP16 throughput of 8.192 TFLOPS is nearly double the NVIDIA part's 4.731 TFLOPS. This suggests that for workloads using half-precision math, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or image processing pipelines, the Intel part may be superior. The Intel part also has double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, which is critical for larger datasets or higher resolution textures. Its memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s is also higher, which can benefit memory-bound workloads. The higher pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s indicate that the Intel part may be better suited for rasterization-heavy tasks, despite its lower overall compute score.

The power envelope is a decisive factor. The NVIDIA part consumes 25 W, while the Intel part consumes 50 W. This means the NVIDIA part is far more efficient in terms of performance per watt, assuming the OpenCL score is the primary metric. For thin-and-light laptops where thermal and battery constraints are tight, the NVIDIA part is clearly the better choice. The Intel part, with its higher TDP, would require more robust cooling and a larger battery, which could limit its use to bulkier laptops or workstations. The database lists both as end-of-life products, so this comparison is about existing hardware rather than future purchases.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is the faster GPU in raw compute terms. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark with a 24.7% margin, has a higher average benchmark score of 38,691 versus 31,894, and sits in the 81st percentile compared to the Intel part's 76th percentile. For users whose primary concern is OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA part is the clear winner. Its lower TDP of 25 W also makes it the superior choice for power-constrained mobile devices.

However, the Intel Arc Pro A30M is not without merit. Its 4 GB of memory doubles the NVIDIA part's 2 GB, which is essential for workloads that exceed the smaller frame buffer. Its FP16 performance is nearly double, and its fill rates are significantly higher. For specific use cases like half-precision computing or memory-intensive rendering, the Intel part could be the better option, provided the system can accommodate its 50 W TDP. The data does not show a scenario where the Intel part wins a compute benchmark, but its architectural traits suggest it is optimized for different tasks.

The choice depends on the workload. If the requirement is general-purpose compute with a strict power budget, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is the data-backed recommendation. If the requirement involves large memory footprints or half-precision throughput, the Intel Arc Pro A30M may be worth considering, despite its lower overall benchmark score. The database shows that both parts are competitive within their respective peer groups, as evidenced by their close deltas to rival GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A, with an average score of 38,691, compared to the Intel Arc Pro A30M's 31,894.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GPU in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A scores 39,780, which is 24.7% higher than the Intel Arc Pro A30M's score of 31,894.

Q: Which GPU has more memory capacity?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A has 2 GB.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A has a TDP of 25 W, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M has a TDP of 50 W.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP16 performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M, with 8.192 TFLOPS, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A's 4.731 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A and the Intel Arc Pro A30M support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is based on the GA107SB chip with the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M uses the DG2-128 chip with the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA part has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, whereas the Intel part has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. Transistor density is 43.5M per mm² for NVIDIA and 45.9M per mm² for Intel.

Clock speeds differ significantly: NVIDIA's base is 832 MHz with a boost of 1155 MHz, while Intel's base is 1500 MHz with a boost of 2000 MHz. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA and 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for Intel. The NVIDIA part has 2 GB of memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part has 4 GB with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

The compute unit counts vary: NVIDIA has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. Intel has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. Pixel rates are 36.96 GPixel/s for NVIDIA and 64.00 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rates are 73.92 GTexel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 performance is 4.731 TFLOPS for NVIDIA and 4.096 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16 performance is 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA and 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel.

Power consumption is 25 W for NVIDIA and 50 W for Intel. The NVIDIA part has an IGP slot width, while Intel's slot width is not listed. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 and have no power connectors. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both. Release dates differ: NVIDIA on December 16, 2021, and Intel on August 7, 2022. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP recorded in the database.