Intel Arc A770 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti and Intel Arc A770 represent two very different approaches to high-end graphics, separated by a clear performance gap but also by distinct architectural philosophies. The RTX 3090 Ti is an Ampere-based flagship aimed at maximum throughput, while the Arc A770 is Intel’s first serious attempt at discrete graphics, built on the Xe-HPG architecture. The recorded benchmarks show a dominant win for NVIDIA across every test, yet the Intel card still holds interest for specific workloads and system configurations. This analysis relies solely on the database entries for both products, including their specifications, benchmark scores, and nearest rivals.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti records an average benchmark score of 131,938, while the Intel Arc A770 averages 68,809. The RTX 3090 Ti sits at the 95th percentile among all GPUs, whereas the Arc A770 reaches the 90th percentile.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards in any single test?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RTX 3090 Ti scores 215,633 against the Arc A770’s 94,284, a difference of 128.7%. This is the largest margin recorded across the three head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory capacity and type?

A: The RTX 3090 Ti comes with 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A770 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has double the memory bus width and roughly twice the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Arc A770 boosts to 2400 MHz, compared to the RTX 3090 Ti’s 1860 MHz. The Intel card also has a higher base clock at 2100 MHz versus 1560 MHz. Despite this, the RTX 3090 Ti still outperforms it in every recorded benchmark.

Q: What are the power connector requirements for each card?

A: The RTX 3090 Ti uses a single 16-pin connector and has a suggested power supply of 850 W. The Arc A770 uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, with a suggested power supply of 550 W. The NVIDIA card draws a 450 W TDP, while the Intel card is rated at 225 W.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc A770 records a pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s, which is higher than the RTX 3090 Ti’s 208.3 GPixel/s. However, the RTX 3090 Ti leads in texture rate at 625.0 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, winning all three recorded benchmark tests. The wins are not narrow: the smallest margin is 59.8% in Geekbench OpenCL, and the largest is 128.7% in Geekbench Vulkan. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the RTX 3090 Ti scores 5,741 against 2,969, a 93.4% advantage. For any user prioritizing raw compute or DirectX 12 gaming performance, the NVIDIA card is the clear choice based on these numbers.

The Intel Arc A770 does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but its specification sheet reveals areas where it remains competitive on paper. Its pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s exceeds the RTX 3090 Ti’s 208.3 GPixel/s, suggesting that for certain rasterization-heavy tasks, the Intel architecture can push pixels faster. Additionally, the Arc A770’s FP16 rating of 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1) comes close to the RTX 3090 Ti’s 40.00 TFLOPS (1:1), indicating that in half-precision workloads, the gap narrows considerably. The Arc A770 also uses a dual-slot cooler, which is more compact than the RTX 3090 Ti’s triple-slot design.

For users who prioritize power efficiency, the Arc A770 has a 225 W TDP against the RTX 3090 Ti’s 450 W, and it requires only a 550 W suggested power supply versus 850 W. This makes the Intel card easier to integrate into existing systems with lower power budgets. The Arc A770 also supports DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the RTX 3090 Ti uses DisplayPort 1.4a, which could matter for future high-bandwidth display connections.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti uses the Ampere architecture, implemented on an 8 nm process from Samsung. Its chip, designated GA102, contains 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die. The Intel Arc A770 uses the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process by TSMC. Its DG2-512 chip has 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. Interestingly, the Intel chip has a higher transistor density at 53.4 million per mm², compared to NVIDIA’s 45.1 million per mm².

The RTX 3090 Ti is equipped with 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores, reflecting NVIDIA’s focus on ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads. The Arc A770 has 32 RT cores and no tensor cores listed in the database, indicating a different approach to acceleration, leaning more on general-purpose shaders. The NVIDIA card also has significantly more shading units (10,752 versus 4,096) and texture mapping units (336 versus 256). The Intel card does have more ROPs (128 versus 112), which aligns with its higher pixel rate.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The RTX 3090 Ti is part of the GeForce 30-series, succeeding the GeForce 20 lineup and preceding the GeForce 40 series. The Arc A770 belongs to the Alchemist generation (Arc 7), succeeding Xe Graphics and preceding Battlemage. Both are marked as end-of-life in production status.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is memory. The RTX 3090 Ti has 24 GB of GDDR6X, while the Arc A770 has 16 GB of GDDR6. The bus width is 384-bit versus 256-bit, and bandwidth is 1.01 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Clock speeds differ greatly: the Intel card runs at 2100 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA card runs at 1560 MHz base and 1860 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the RTX 3090 Ti at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective) and the Arc A770 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Compute throughput shows a clear NVIDIA lead in FP32: 40.00 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS. In FP16, the RTX 3090 Ti delivers 40.00 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Arc A770 delivers 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1), nearly matching. Pixel rates favor Intel at 307.2 GPixel/s versus 208.3 GPixel/s, while texture rates slightly favor NVIDIA at 625.0 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s. Power consumption is another major split: 450 W TDP for NVIDIA versus 225 W for Intel, with corresponding power connector differences (1x 16-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin) and suggested PSU ratings (850 W versus 550 W).

Physical dimensions are only recorded for the NVIDIA card: 336 mm length, 140 mm height, and 61 mm width. The Intel card’s dimensions are not listed. Slot width differs, with the RTX 3090 Ti being triple-slot and the Arc A770 being dual-slot. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 interfaces. Display outputs are similar, with both offering 1x HDMI 2.1, but the NVIDIA card has 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Intel card has 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records three head-to-head comparisons, and the RTX 3090 Ti wins all of them decisively. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the NVIDIA card scores 5,741 versus 2,969, which translates to a 93.4% advantage. This test stresses overall GPU performance under DirectX 12, and the result indicates that the RTX 3090 Ti delivers nearly double the frame throughput in this workload.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 Ti scores 174,441 against 109,175, a 59.8% lead. This test measures general-purpose compute performance across a range of workloads. The NVIDIA card’s higher FP32 throughput and larger memory bandwidth likely contribute to this margin. The Arc A770’s score is respectable but clearly behind.

The largest gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 3090 Ti scores 215,633 and the Arc A770 scores 94,284, a 128.7% difference. Vulkan is a low-level API that can expose architectural efficiencies, and the NVIDIA card’s massive shading unit count and tensor core array appear to provide a substantial advantage. The Arc A770’s Vulkan score is less than half of the NVIDIA card’s, marking this as the weakest area for Intel in the recorded tests.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the RTX 3090 Ti’s average score of 131,938 sits close to the NVIDIA L4 (131,072, a 0.7% difference) and the RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218, a -2.4% difference). The Arc A770’s average of 68,809 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000, a -0.3% difference) and slightly below the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 (68,562, a 0.4% difference). These comparisons place the RTX 3090 Ti in a much higher performance tier, roughly double the average score of the Arc A770.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti is the superior performer in every benchmark. Its average benchmark score of 131,938 is nearly double the Arc A770’s 68,809, and it wins all three head-to-head tests by margins ranging from 59.8% to 128.7%. Users who need maximum compute throughput, high VRAM capacity, or broad software compatibility should choose the NVIDIA card. Its 24 GB of GDDR6X memory and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth are unmatched in this comparison, and its 95th percentile ranking among all GPUs reflects its high-end positioning.

The Intel Arc A770 is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside the benchmark results. Its 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU make it far less demanding on system power. Its smaller dual-slot footprint is easier to install in compact cases. Its higher pixel rate (307.2 GPixel/s) could benefit certain rasterization-heavy scenarios, and its DisplayPort 2.0 outputs offer a more future-proof display interface. The Arc A770 also matches the RTX 3090 Ti in FP16 performance at 39.32 TFLOPS, making it a competent choice for half-precision workloads despite the overall compute deficit.

For gaming and heavy compute, the RTX 3090 Ti is the only reasonable pick from these numbers. For users with power constraints, limited case space, or a preference for Intel’s newer architecture, the Arc A770 remains a viable alternative, but the data does not support it as a performance equal. The RTX 3090 Ti wins 3 benchmarks to 0, and that result is the clearest signal in this comparison.