Intel Arc A370M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a decisive advantage for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile across both shared benchmark workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA part scores 50,038 points against 29,676 for the Intel Arc A370M, a 68.6% lead. The Vulkan result is even wider: 49,051 versus 28,673, a 71.1% margin. These are not marginal differences; they represent a generational gap in raw compute throughput that appears consistently across both API paths.

The OpenCL score of 50,038 places the RTX 3050 Mobile in the 78th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Arc A370M sits at the 74th percentile. That percentile gap, 4 points, understates the actual performance delta because the database percentile is computed against all GPUs, not just this pairing. The average benchmark score tells a cleaner story: 33,170 for the NVIDIA part versus 29,175 for Intel, a 13.7% difference in aggregate performance when including the Steel Nomad DX12 result that only the RTX 3050 Mobile has recorded. That extra data point, 421 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, is a modern DirectX 12 workload where the Intel card has no recorded score, suggesting it may not have been tested or may not be competitive in that specific benchmark.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card clarifies their competitive positioning. The RTX 3050 Mobile's closest competitor is the NVIDIA T550 Mobile at 33,161 average score, a 0% delta, effectively identical. The AMD Radeon Pro 570 is 0.1% behind, and the NVIDIA P104-100 is 0.6% ahead. The Intel Arc A370M, however, is bracketed by a different set of rivals: the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29,197 (0.1% behind), AMD FirePro W8000 at 29,211 (0.1% behind), and AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (0.6% ahead). The Intel card's nearest rivals are all older AMD desktop or workstation parts, while the NVIDIA card's rivals are professional mobile GPUs, reflecting different target markets.

The delta percentages in the head-to-head table are stark: 68.6% and 71.1% both favor NVIDIA. No single benchmark in the shared set favors Intel. The pattern holds across both compute-oriented (OpenCL) and graphics-oriented (Vulkan) APIs, which suggests the advantage is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental throughput difference. The RTX 3050 Mobile's FP32 rating of 5.501 TFLOPS versus the Arc A370M's 4.198 TFLOPS aligns with this: a 31% raw compute advantage that manifests as even larger real-world deltas due to memory bandwidth and other factors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile scores 50,038 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 29,676 for the Intel Arc A370M, a 68.6% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The NVIDIA card scores 49,051 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to 28,673 for Intel, resulting in a 71.1% lead for NVIDIA.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 33,170 across all recorded tests, while the Arc A370M averages 29,175. This includes the 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 421 that the Intel card does not have.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile ranks in the 78th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A370M ranks in the 74th percentile.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel Arc A370M wins?

A: In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Intel Arc A370M does not win any test. The NVIDIA card wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile's nearest rival is the NVIDIA T550 Mobile at 33,161 average score, a 0% delta. The Arc A370M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29,197, which is 0.1% behind the Intel card.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile in any workload that involves OpenCL or Vulkan compute. The 68.6% and 71.1% deltas are too large to be explained by driver maturity or benchmark quirks; they reflect a hardware-level advantage in shading units (2,048 versus 1,024), FP32 throughput (5.501 TFLOPS versus 4.198 TFLOPS), and memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s). The NVIDIA card also has a higher average benchmark score (33,170 versus 29,175) and a higher percentile ranking (78th versus 74th).

For users who need the highest frame rates in DirectX 12 titles, the RTX 3050 Mobile's recorded 421 in 3DMark Steel Nomad provides a data point the Arc A370M lacks, though the absence of an Intel score in that test limits direct comparison. The Intel card does have a higher pixel rate (65.60 GPixel/s versus 42.98 GPixel/s) and texture rate (131.2 GTexel/s versus 85.95 GTexel/s), which could benefit certain fill-rate-bound scenarios, but these advantages do not translate into wins in the recorded benchmarks. The Arc A370M's higher clocks (2,050 MHz boost versus 1,343 MHz) and FP16 throughput (8.397 TFLOPS versus 5.501 TFLOPS) are interesting on paper but do not result in superior scores in the tests available.

The RTX 3050 Mobile is the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute and graphics workloads based on the database's measurements. The Intel Arc A370M may serve as a lower-power option (35 W versus 45 W TDP) for thin-and-light designs, but the performance penalty is substantial. No recorded data supports selecting the Intel card for performance reasons.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every core specification. The NVIDIA chip uses 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Intel chip has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Ray tracing cores number 16 on the NVIDIA part versus 8 on Intel; NVIDIA also includes 64 tensor cores while Intel lists no tensor core count. The memory subsystem differs in bus width: 128-bit for NVIDIA versus 64-bit for Intel, with matching 4 GB GDDR6 capacity but different bandwidth (192.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s). Memory clocks are 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) on NVIDIA versus 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on Intel.

Clock speeds are starkly different: the RTX 3050 Mobile runs at 1,065 MHz base and 1,343 MHz boost, while the Arc A370M runs at 1,550 MHz base and 2,050 MHz boost. The higher clocks on Intel partially offset its narrower memory bus and fewer shading units. Pixel rate favors Intel at 65.60 GPixel/s versus 42.98 GPixel/s, as does texture rate at 131.2 GTexel/s versus 85.95 GTexel/s. FP32 performance favors NVIDIA at 5.501 TFLOPS versus 4.198 TFLOPS, while FP16 favors Intel at 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 5.501 TFLOPS (1:1) on NVIDIA.

TDP differs: 45 W for NVIDIA versus 35 W for Intel. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces and are IGP (integrated GPU) form factors with no dedicated power connectors. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile is built on the Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process. The die measures 200 mm² and contains 8,700 million transistors, giving a density of 43.5 million transistors per mm². It belongs to the GeForce 30 Mobile generation and was released on May 10, 2021, succeeding the GeForce 20 Mobile series. Its production status is end-of-life.

The Intel Arc A370M uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The die is smaller at 157 mm² and contains 7,200 million transistors, resulting in a density of 45.9 million transistors per mm². It belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation and was released on March 29, 2022. It has no recorded predecessor or successor in the database, and its production status is also end-of-life.

The architectural differences explain the benchmark results. NVIDIA's Ampere design pairs 2,048 shading units with a 128-bit memory bus and 16 ray tracing cores, whereas Intel's Xe-HPG design uses 1,024 shading units with a 64-bit bus and 8 ray tracing cores. The transistor density is slightly higher on Intel (45.9M versus 43.5M per mm²), but the total transistor count is lower (7,200 million versus 8,700 million), and the smaller die does not compensate for the reduced shader count and bandwidth. The FP16 ratio differs (1:1 on NVIDIA, 2:1 on Intel), which reflects different compute pipeline designs: NVIDIA treats FP16 and FP32 at the same rate, while Intel doubles FP16 throughput. This does not help Intel in the recorded OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks, which are dominated by FP32 and graphics workloads.

Both GPUs share the same API feature set (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4) and display output flexibility ("Portable Device Dependent"), meaning laptops can implement either as needed. The process node advantage for Intel (6 nm versus 8 nm) and the higher boost clock (2,050 MHz versus 1,343 MHz) are outweighed by the raw resource differences. The data shows that for the workloads measured, the NVIDIA part's larger shader array and wider memory interface produce consistently higher scores, despite the Intel part's architectural efficiency improvements.