Intel Arc A350M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records two head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Arc A350M and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, and the results are decisive in one direction. The Intel Arc A350M wins both recorded tests, with the largest margin appearing in Geekbench OpenCL.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A350M scores 24,546 points against the Quadro M4000M's 19,989 points. That is a 22.8% advantage for the Intel part. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial gap that places the Arc A350M in a different performance tier for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The Arc A350M scores 24,747 points, while the Quadro M4000M manages 20,971 points. The delta here is 18%, still a clear win for Intel, but the reduced gap compared to OpenCL suggests the Vulkan workload narrows the difference somewhat. Even so, the Arc A350M maintains a comfortable lead.

Looking at the broader context, the Arc A350M's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 24,647 points. That places it at the 70th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 590, which averages 24,744 points (a delta of -0.4%), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile at 24,763 points (-0.5%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT at 24,442 points (+0.8%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 at 24,277 points (+1.5%). In other words, the Arc A350M is essentially trading blows with desktop-class GPUs from a few generations back, sitting within 1.5% of all four of its closest competitors.

The Quadro M4000M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 20,480 points, putting it at the 65th percentile. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around it: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20,534 points (-0.3%), the Intel Arc B570 at 20,556 points (-0.4%), the Intel Arc A750 at 20,582 points (-0.5%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X at 20,662 points (-0.9%). The Quadro M4000M is within 0.9% of all four of these parts, indicating that it performs in line with mid-range mobile GPUs from a much later era.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: the Arc A350M outperforms the Quadro M4000M by roughly 20% across both recorded benchmarks. That is a meaningful difference for any workload that relies on compute throughput, and it is worth remembering the Arc A350M achieves this while being a much smaller and lower-power part, as detailed in the specification sections below.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A350M wins with a score of 24,546 against 19,989 for the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, a 22.8% advantage.

Q: Is the Vulkan performance gap the same as OpenCL?

A: No, the Vulkan gap is smaller. The Arc A350M scores 24,747 versus 20,971 for the Quadro M4000M, which is an 18% lead instead of 22.8%.

Q: How does the Arc A350M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A350M's average score of 24,647 is within 1.5% of its four nearest rivals, which include the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744), NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763), AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24,277).

Q: Where does the Quadro M4000M sit relative to modern GPUs?

A: The Quadro M4000M's average score of 20,480 places it within 0.9% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, Intel Arc B570, Intel Arc A750, and AMD Radeon R9 M390X, all of which score between 20,534 and 20,662.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The Arc A350M sits at the 70th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro M4000M sits at the 65th percentile.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each GPU have in the head-to-head?

A: The Arc A350M wins both recorded head-to-head tests, while the Quadro M4000M has zero wins.

The Verdict

The data leaves little room for ambiguity. The Intel Arc A350M is the faster GPU in every recorded benchmark, with a 22.8% lead in OpenCL and an 18% lead in Vulkan. Anyone choosing between these two for general compute performance should pick the Arc A350M without hesitation.

The Quadro M4000M does have one thing going for it: its 65th percentile ranking is respectable, and it sits within 0.9% of much newer parts like the RTX 3070 Mobile and the Arc A750. But those parts are all roughly 10% slower than the Arc A350M, which means the Quadro M4000M is simply in a lower performance tier.

For workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan, the Arc A350M is the clear choice. Its higher texture rate (105.6 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (3.379 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS) explain why it pulls ahead in compute-heavy tests. The Quadro M4000M does have a higher pixel rate (64.83 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s) and more memory bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s), but those advantages do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the Arc A350M for better compute performance, and only consider the Quadro M4000M if you specifically need its older interface or higher pixel throughput for a narrow set of tasks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification, which explains their divergent performance profiles.

The Intel Arc A350M uses a 6 nm process node from TSMC, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M uses a 28 nm node from the same foundry. This is a generational leap in manufacturing technology. The Arc A350M packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The Quadro M4000M has 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 398 mm² die, resulting in just 13.1 million transistors per mm². The Arc A350M is more than three times denser.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The Arc A350M runs at a base clock of 1150 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz. The Quadro M4000M has a base clock of 975 MHz and a boost clock of only 1013 MHz. The Arc A350M's boost clock is more than double the Quadro's, which is a major factor in its higher compute throughput.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but different in everything else. Both have 4 GB of memory, but the Arc A350M uses GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M4000M uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s. The Quadro has a wider bus and higher bandwidth, but the Arc A350M's faster memory clock partially compensates.

The power envelope is dramatically different. The Arc A350M has a TDP of 25 W, while the Quadro M4000M has a TDP of 100 W. The Arc A350M delivers more compute performance while consuming only a quarter of the power. The slot width also differs: the Arc A350M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), while the Quadro M4000M is an MXM Module. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Arc A350M versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro.

DirectX support differs as well. The Arc A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural generation gap between these two GPUs is substantial and explains much of the performance delta.

The Intel Arc A350M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation (Arc 3 Mobile). This is a modern architecture designed with current APIs and workloads in mind. It includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, which the Quadro M4000M lacks entirely. The Arc A350M also has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation (Mx000M). This architecture dates back to a much earlier era. It has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The higher counts of shading units and ROPs are notable, but they are paired with much lower clock speeds and an older instruction set. The Quadro M4000M has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, consistent with its architecture's age.

The FP32 compute figures reflect the architectural differences. The Arc A350M delivers 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro M4000M delivers 2.593 TFLOPS. The Arc A350M also supports FP16 at 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro M4000M has no recorded FP16 capability.

The transistor density difference is the clearest architectural indicator. The Arc A350M achieves 45.9 million transistors per mm², a figure that reflects modern design and manufacturing. The Quadro M4000M's 13.1 million transistors per mm² is typical of an older, less dense design. The Arc A350M also has a much smaller die (157 mm² versus 398 mm²) despite having more transistors, which is a direct result of the 6 nm versus 28 nm process difference.

The release dates underscore the generational gap: the Arc A350M launched on March 29, 2022, while the Quadro M4000M launched on August 17, 2015. Both are end-of-life products, but the Arc A350M is seven years newer. The Quadro M4000M has a predecessor (Quadro Kepler-M) and a successor (Quadro Pascal-M), while the Arc A350M has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows that the Intel Arc A350M is the winner in compute performance, but the specification differences suggest where each GPU might have specific strengths.

The Arc A350M wins in OpenCL and Vulkan, the two recorded benchmarks. It also wins in FP32 throughput (3.379 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS), texture rate (105.6 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s), and it has ray tracing cores that the Quadro M4000M lacks. For any workload that relies on modern APIs, ray tracing, or high FP32 compute, the Arc A350M is the better choice. Its 25 W TDP also makes it far more suitable for thin-and-light systems where power draw is a constraint.

The Quadro M4000M wins in pixel rate (64.83 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s) and memory bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s). It also has more shading units (1,280 versus 768) and more ROPs (64 versus 24). For workloads that are bandwidth-bound or require high fill rates, the Quadro M4000M has theoretical advantages. Its wider 256-bit memory bus and higher pixel throughput could benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks, though the recorded benchmarks do not reflect such a win.

The Quadro M4000M also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which is a full-width slot, while the Arc A350M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. If the host system only supports PCIe 3.0, the Arc A350M's x8 link might be a limitation, whereas the Quadro's x16 link is at its native width.

In practical terms, the Arc A350M is the pick for modern workloads, including those that use Vulkan or ray tracing. The Quadro M4000M is only worth considering for legacy software that relies on its specific feature set or for systems that require an MXM module with a 100 W power envelope. The data does not show any benchmark where the Quadro M4000M wins, so its advantages remain theoretical rather than demonstrated.