Intel Arc Pro A30M vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two professional graphics cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is not close. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 records a score of 150,004, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M manages 31,894. That places the Quadro GV100 a massive 370.3% ahead of the Intel part in raw OpenCL compute performance. In absolute terms, the GV100 delivers nearly five times the score of the A30M, a gap that reflects not just architectural differences but also the very different market positions of the two cards.

Looking at the broader database picture, the Quadro GV100 sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35,520. Its nearest rivals, as recorded in the database, include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile at 35,435, which trails by a mere 0.2%, and the NVIDIA T1000 at 36,289, which leads the GV100 by 2.1%. The AMD Radeon Pro Duo scores 35,860, beating the GV100 by 0.9%, while the NVIDIA A2 falls behind at 34,690, a 2.4% deficit. The data indicates that the Quadro GV100 sits in a tightly competitive cluster where differences between adjacent cards are small, often under 3%, even though the absolute scores are substantial.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M, by contrast, holds the 76th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 31,894. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN RTX at 31,676, which trails by 0.7%, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell at 31,532, which is 1.1% behind. The AMD Radeon Pro 570X scores 32,176, leading the A30M by 0.9%, and the AMD FirePro S10000 reaches 32,388, a 1.5% advantage. The A30M is therefore positioned in a slightly lower performance band than the GV100, but it is still competitive with some very capable desktop-class cards from previous generations.

The head-to-head comparison shows a single win for the Quadro GV100 and no wins for the Intel Arc Pro A30M. The only test where both cards have recorded scores is Geekbench OpenCL, and the GV100 dominates that test. The absence of other shared benchmarks means the broader picture must be drawn from the percentile rankings and the rival comparisons already discussed. What is clear from the data is that the Quadro GV100 occupies a higher absolute performance tier, while the A30M occupies a more modest one, despite both being professional or prosumer oriented products.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 150,004 places it far beyond the Intel Arc Pro A30M, and its average benchmark score of 35,520 exceeds the A30M's 31,894 by roughly 11.4%. For workloads that rely heavily on OpenCL compute, such as certain scientific simulations, image processing pipelines, or GPU-accelerated analytics, the data points decisively to the Quadro GV100. The card also carries a much larger memory pool of 32 GB of HBM2, which, while not directly benchmarked here, strongly suggests an advantage in datasets that exceed the A30M's 4 GB GDDR6 capacity. The database shows the GV100's memory bandwidth at 868.4 GB/s, a figure that dwarfs the A30M's 128.0 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage would translate into faster data movement for memory-bound workloads, even if no direct benchmark in the dataset captures that difference.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M, despite its lower raw compute scores, wins in efficiency and portability. Its 50 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro GV100's 250 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connectors, whereas the GV100 needs a single 8-pin connector. The A30M is also built on a much smaller die, 157 mm² versus 815 mm², and uses a 6 nm process compared to the GV100's 12 nm node. For mobile or compact professional systems, the A30M is the only practical choice given its form factor and power envelope. The data also shows the A30M supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GV100 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16; in bandwidth-constrained systems, the newer PCIe standard may offer better transfer rates for certain workloads.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Quadro GV100 is the choice for maximum compute performance, large memory footprints, and high-bandwidth workflows. The Intel Arc Pro A30M is the choice for low-power, mobile, or space-constrained deployments where the workload fits within 4 GB of memory and the compute demands are more modest. Neither card wins across every dimension, but the benchmark data shows the GV100 winning the only directly measured compute test by a landslide.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural lineages entirely. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 uses the Volta architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 21,100 million transistors packed into a die size of 815 mm². The transistor density works out to 25.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Pro A30M, on the other hand, uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the Alchemist generation for professional mobile parts, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The A30M therefore packs transistors more tightly, but the GV100 has almost three times the total transistor count.

Memory architecture also differs sharply. The Quadro GV100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock figures reflect these different designs: the GV100's memory runs at 848 MHz with 1696 Mbps effective, while the A30M's memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. The much wider bus on the GV100 is what enables its enormous bandwidth advantage despite lower clock speeds.

Compute resources differ as well. The Quadro GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, 128 render output units, and 640 tensor cores. It has no dedicated ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Pro A30M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores, but no tensor cores. The GV100's FP32 throughput is 16.66 TFLOPS, while its FP16 throughput is 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1). The A30M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The GV100 is roughly four times faster in both FP32 and FP16 compute, which aligns with the OpenCL benchmark results.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The Quadro GV100 achieves 208.3 GPixel/s and 520.6 GTexel/s, while the Intel part reaches 64.00 GPixel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s. The GV100 also supports a different API feature set: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the A30M's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), with both supporting OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The A30M's inclusion of ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate suggests a more modern feature set for real-time graphics, even though its raw compute is lower. The Quadro GV100 relies on tensor cores for AI workloads, while the A30M has no such hardware, meaning any AI acceleration on the Intel part would depend on software or shader-based approaches.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 has an average benchmark score of 35,520, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M averages 31,894. The GV100 also ranks at the 80th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the A30M's 76th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Quadro GV100 scores 150,004, which is 370.3% higher than the A30M's 31,894. This is the only benchmark where both cards have recorded scores in the database.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the Quadro GV100?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35,435, 0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (35,860, 0.9% ahead), the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289, 2.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA A2 (34,690, 2.4% behind).

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the Intel Arc Pro A30M?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (31,676, 0.7% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 570X (32,176, 0.9% ahead), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (31,532, 1.1% behind), and the AMD FirePro S10000 (32,388, 1.5% ahead).

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M has 8 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 has none. The A30M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the GV100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths?

A: The Quadro GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus and 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro A30M has 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes the performance hierarchy clear. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the stronger card in raw compute, holding a 370.3% lead in the only shared benchmark and a higher average score across all recorded tests. For workloads that demand maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, large memory capacity, or very high memory bandwidth, the GV100 is the appropriate choice. The database shows it competing closely with cards like the RTX 5070 Ti Mobile and T1000, which places it in a high-performance tier that the A30M does not reach.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M, however, has its own strengths. Its 50 W TDP, lack of auxiliary power connectors, and portable form factor make it suitable for mobile workstations. The presence of ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support gives it a modern graphics feature set that the older Volta card lacks. For users whose workloads are limited to 4 GB of memory and do not require extreme compute throughput, the A30M offers a more practical low-power solution.

The decision rests on the workload. If the task is heavy compute, large datasets, or high-bandwidth processing, the Quadro GV100 is the clear pick. If the task is mobile, low-power, or real-time graphics with ray tracing, the Intel Arc Pro A30M fits better. The data does not support any conclusion that the A30M can match the GV100 in compute; it simply serves a different purpose within the professional GPU ecosystem.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro GV100 | Intel Arc Pro A30M |

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

| Architecture | Volta | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Quadro Volta (Vx000) | Alchemist (Pro-Series Mobile) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 21,100 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 815 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.9M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1132 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1627 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 868.4 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 848 MHz, 1696 Mbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 5120 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 320 | 64 |

| ROPs | 128 | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 640 | None |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 208.3 GPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 520.6 GTexel/s | 128.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 16.66 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 50 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Release Date | 2018-03-26 | 2022-08-07 |

| Launch MSRP | 8,999 USD | Not specified |