GPU Comparison

The Intel Arc A570M and NVIDIA P102-100 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: one is a modern mobile part built on a 6nm process, the other a mining-oriented desktop card from 2018. Despite that, their average benchmark scores sit within 1.1% of each other, making this a closer comparison than the generational gap suggests. The data, however, reveals very different strengths — the Arc wins the only shared test outright, while the P102-100 counters with far higher raw compute figures and memory bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark both cards have in common is Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the Intel Arc A570M scores 58,239 points, while the NVIDIA P102-100 manages 49,602. That is a 17.4% advantage for the Arc — a decisive margin in a compute workload. This result is consistent with the Arc’s position in its own nearestRivals list, where it sits 1.1% ahead of the P102-100 in average score. The P102-100, however, has a second benchmark result — Geekbench Vulkan at 65,600 — which lifts its overall average to 57,601. That average is nearly identical to the Arc’s 58,239, but the Vulkan score is not comparable because the Arc has no Vulkan benchmark listed. So in the only direct head-to-head, the Intel card wins by a wide margin, while the aggregate numbers suggest the two are far closer.

The P102-100’s raw specifications hint at why it might perform well in other tests: it has 3,200 shading units versus the Arc’s 2,048, and 200 texture mapping units against 128. Its FP32 throughput is 10.77 TFLOPS, nearly double the Arc’s 5.325 TFLOPS. Yet the OpenCL result shows the Arc ahead, which points to architectural efficiency and driver maturity rather than brute compute count. The Arc also has 16 ray tracing cores, a feature the P102-100 lacks entirely. For any workload that leverages modern APIs or RT, the Arc is the clear choice.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 delivers 10.77 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc A570M provides 5.325 TFLOPS — the NVIDIA card has roughly twice the raw FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the Arc A570M support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, it includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The P102-100 has no ray tracing hardware at all.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Arc A570M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s. The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 440.3 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has higher bandwidth but less capacity.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The Arc A570M has a 75 W TDP, versus the P102-100’s 250 W. The Intel part also requires no external power connectors, while the NVIDIA card needs two 8-pin connectors and a 600 W power supply.

Q: Which card is newer and still in production?

A: The Arc A570M was released on 2023-07-31 and is listed as Active. The P102-100 launched on 2018-02-11 and is End-of-life.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The Arc A570M has outputs described as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning it can drive displays depending on the laptop design. The P102-100 has no display outputs — it is a mining-only card.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different architectures and process nodes. The Intel Arc A570M uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA P102-100 uses the Pascal architecture on a 16 nm TSMC process. The transistor counts are nearly identical — 11,500 million for Intel and 11,800 million for NVIDIA — but the die sizes diverge sharply: 269 mm² for the Arc versus 471 mm² for the P102-100. That yields a transistor density of 42.8M/mm² for the Intel part, versus 25.1M/mm² for the NVIDIA part, showing how much more compact the modern process is.

Memory architecture also differs. The Arc uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The P102-100 uses GDDR5X with a 320-bit bus and 440.3 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card’s wider bus gives it nearly double the bandwidth, but the Arc has more capacity (8 GB vs 5 GB). The P102-100 also has a much higher base clock (1582 MHz vs 900 MHz) and boost clock (1683 MHz vs 1300 MHz), but those clocks are offset by the older architecture’s lower efficiency.

API support is another major split. The Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing and variable rate shading. The P102-100 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the Arc’s higher DirectX tier is critical for modern games. The Arc also has 16 RT cores; the P102-100 has none. Additionally, the Arc’s FP16 performance is 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the P102-100’s FP16 is just 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio) — a massive gap for any compute that uses half-precision.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A570M | NVIDIA P102-100 |

|----------------|----------------|-----------------|

| Process node | 6 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 11,500 million | 11,800 million |

| Die size | 269 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Transistor density | 42.8M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 900 MHz | 1582 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1300 MHz | 1683 MHz |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 440.3 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2048 | 3200 |

| TMUs | 128 | 200 |

| ROPs | 64 | 80 |

| RT cores | 16 | 0 |

| Pixel rate | 83.20 GPixel/s | 134.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 166.4 GTexel/s | 336.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.325 TFLOPS | 10.77 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1) | 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 75 W | 250 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 600 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x4 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX version | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release date | 2023-07-31 | 2018-02-11 |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Length | Not specified | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

The table highlights how the P102-100 dominates in raw throughput metrics — shading units, texture rate, pixel rate, FP32, and memory bandwidth. The Arc counters with a smaller, denser chip, lower power draw, modern memory type, more VRAM, and hardware ray tracing.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data and specifications, the Intel Arc A570M is the better card for nearly any modern use case. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark (OpenCL) by 17.4%, has double the VRAM, supports ray tracing, runs on a far more efficient process (75 W TDP vs 250 W), and is still in active production. The P102-100’s advantages — higher FP32, more shading units, and greater memory bandwidth — do not translate into a win in the shared test, and its lack of display outputs makes it unusable for typical desktop workloads. The Arc also offers DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the P102-100 is stuck at DirectX 12 (12_1). For gaming, content creation, or general compute, the Arc is the logical pick. The P102-100 might appeal to someone needing raw FP32 throughput in a mining or headless compute scenario, but its end-of-life status and 250 W power requirement make it a niche choice.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A570M wins in every category that matters for a modern user. It wins the sole benchmark test (OpenCL) with a 17.4% margin. It has more VRAM (8 GB vs 5 GB), hardware ray tracing (16 RT cores), a lower power draw (75 W vs 250 W), a newer process node (6 nm vs 16 nm), and a more advanced API tier (DirectX 12 Ultimate). It is also Active in production, while the P102-100 is End-of-life. The Arc’s FP16 performance (10.65 TFLOPS) is dramatically higher than the P102-100’s 168.3 GFLOPS, which matters for AI and scientific workloads that use half-precision.

The NVIDIA P102-100 wins on raw compute specs. It has more shading units (3,200 vs 2,048), higher FP32 (10.77 vs 5.325 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate (134.6 vs 83.20 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (336.6 vs 166.4 GTexel/s), and nearly double the memory bandwidth (440.3 vs 224.0 GB/s). Its base and boost clocks are also much higher (1582/1683 MHz vs 900/1300 MHz). In a hypothetical test that scales purely with these raw numbers — such as certain compute kernels that ignore modern features — the P102-100 would likely win. However, the only shared benchmark shows the opposite, indicating that the Arc’s architecture and driver optimizations offset the P102-100’s brute force. For any workload that can use ray tracing, half-precision, or DirectX 12 Ultimate, the Arc is the definitive winner. For legacy compute that relies on FP32 and doesn’t care about power or outputs, the P102-100 still holds a theoretical edge — but it is a card with no display outputs, no ray tracing, and a 250 W power draw, making it a hard sell outside of specialized mining or compute rigs.