Intel Arc A350M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data splits these two GPUs into entirely different performance classes. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 dominates in every recorded benchmark, with the Intel Arc A350M trailing by 68.9% in Geekbench OpenCL and 73.2% in Geekbench Vulkan. If your workload depends on raw compute throughput, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the only defensible choice from these measurements.

The Intel Arc A350M does have one advantage: power consumption. The database lists the Arc at 25 W TDP versus 230 W for the Quadro, and the Arc uses an integrated form factor while the Quadro is a dual-slot card requiring a 550 W power supply. For a compact, low-power mobile system, the Arc A350M makes sense. For a desktop workstation with available space and power, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the clear winner.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The Arc A350M sits at the 70th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 5000 sits at the 67th percentile. Do not let those close percentiles fool you: the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The Arc averages 24647, while the Quadro averages 21629, yet the Quadro's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB (21856, 1% higher) and RTX A4000 Mobile (21379, 1.2% lower). The Arc's nearest rivals include the RTX A5000 Mobile (24763, 0.5% higher) and RX 6600 XT (24442, 0.8% lower). The Arc A350M punches near its weight class in average score, but the Quadro RTX 5000's individual benchmark results show far higher ceiling performance.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A350M uses the DG2-128 chip built on TSMC's 6 nm process, featuring the Xe-HPG architecture from the Alchemist generation (Arc 3 Mobile). It packs 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 uses the TU104 chip on TSMC's 12 nm process, based on the Turing architecture from the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. It holds 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, with 25.0 million per square millimeter.

The Arc A350M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The Quadro RTX 5000 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 384 tensor cores. That is a 4x difference in shading units and an 8x difference in RT cores, which explains the wide performance gap in compute-heavy workloads.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Arc A350M runs at a 1150 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The Quadro RTX 5000 runs at a 1620 MHz base and 1815 MHz boost. Despite the lower boost clock, the Quadro's massive core count carries its lead. Both use GDDR6 memory at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed. The memory subsystem diverges sharply: the Arc has 4 GB on a 64-bit bus delivering 112.0 GB/s, while the Quadro has 16 GB on a 256-bit bus delivering 448.0 GB/s. The Quadro offers 4x the capacity and exactly 4x the bandwidth.

The bus interfaces also differ. The Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs on the Arc are listed as portable-device dependent, while the Quadro provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator here.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes only two head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Quadro RTX 5000 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 78999 against the Arc's 24546, a delta of 68.9% in the Quadro's favor. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro scores 92309 against the Arc's 24747, a delta of 73.2%. These are not close contests; the Quadro delivers roughly three times the score in each test.

Look at the full benchmark list for the Quadro to understand the breadth of its capability. It records a Passmark G3D score of 15616, a Passmark GPU Compute score of 6525, and Passmark DirectX scores of 113 (DX10), 140 (DX11), 59 (DX12), and 195 (DX9). Its Passmark G2D score is 709. The Arc A350M has no equivalent Passmark entries in the database, so direct comparison on those tests is impossible from recorded data.

The average benchmark scores also differ in an interesting way. The Arc A350M averages 24647, which is higher than the Quadro's 21629 average. That happens because the Quadro's Passmark DirectX scores are very low (59 to 195), dragging down its average. The Geekbench scores, which reflect compute performance more directly, show the Quadro far ahead. When interpreting these numbers, prioritize the head-to-head results over the aggregate average.

The nearest rival data adds context. The Arc A350M's closest competitor is the RTX A5000 Mobile at 24763 (0.5% higher), followed by the RX 590 at 24744 (0.4% lower). The Quadro RTX 5000's closest competitor is the GTX 1060 6 GB at 21856 (1% higher), followed by the RTX A4000 Mobile at 21379 (1.2% lower). These rankings show that the Arc A350M competes with midrange mobile GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 5000 competes with older desktop mainstream cards in aggregate score, despite its far higher peak compute in Geekbench tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins decisively. It scores 78999 in Geekbench OpenCL and 92309 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 24546 and 24747 for the Intel Arc A350M. The deltas are 68.9% and 73.2% respectively.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A350M beat the Quadro RTX 5000 in any recorded benchmark?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Arc A350M and two wins for the Quadro RTX 5000 across the head-to-head tests. The Arc also has no Passmark entries to compare against the Quadro's Passmark suite.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Arc A350M is rated at 25 W TDP and uses an integrated form factor with no power connectors listed. The Quadro RTX 5000 is rated at 230 W TDP, uses a dual-slot design, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and recommends a 550 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has 4x the capacity and 4x the bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Arc A350M was released on 2022-03-29, while the Quadro RTX 5000 was released on 2018-08-12. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The Arc A350M uses a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro RTX 5000 uses a 12 nm TSMC process with 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, giving 25.0 million per square millimeter. The Arc has higher density despite fewer total transistors.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins every recorded performance benchmark. Its 78999 OpenCL score and 92309 Vulkan score put it in a different league from the Arc A350M's 24546 and 24747. The Quadro also offers 16 GB of memory versus 4 GB, 448.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s, and a 256-bit bus versus 64-bit. For rendering, machine learning inference, large dataset processing, or any task that scales with CUDA-style compute resources, the Quadro's 3072 shading units, 384 tensor cores, and 48 RT cores make it the practical choice. Its dual-slot cooler and 550 W PSU recommendation are acceptable for a desktop workstation.

The Intel Arc A350M wins on efficiency and form factor. At 25 W TDP, it draws 205 W less than the Quadro's 230 W TDP. It uses an integrated form factor, so it requires no additional power connectors and fits into compact systems where a dual-slot card cannot go. Its 6 nm process gives it a higher transistor density (45.9M / mm² versus 25.0M / mm²), and its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is newer than the Quadro's PCIe 3.0 x16. For a thin-and-light laptop or an embedded system where compute density per watt matters more than absolute throughput, the Arc A350M is the sensible option.

The percentile data adds nuance. The Arc A350M ranks at the 70th percentile, three points above the Quadro's 67th percentile. That ranking reflects all GPUs in the database, and the Arc's higher percentile comes from its competitive average score of 24647 relative to its nearest rivals. The Quadro's average of 21629 is dragged down by its low Passmark DirectX scores. If your workflow relies primarily on Geekbench-style compute tests, the Quadro is far ahead. If you are comparing aggregate database rankings, the Arc actually sits slightly higher.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A350M | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 |

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

| Chip | DG2-128 | TU104 |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Turing |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 13,600 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 545 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1150 MHz | 1620 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 1815 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 48 | 192 |

| ROPs | 24 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 6 | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | Not listed | 384 |

| FP32 Performance | 3.379 TFLOPS | 11.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) | 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 52.80 GPixel/s | 116.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 105.6 GTexel/s | 348.5 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 25 W | 230 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None listed | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 550 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Release Date | 2022-03-29 | 2018-08-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 2,299 USD |

The Quadro RTX 5000 also lists dimensions of 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, while the Arc A350M has no listed dimensions due to its integrated nature. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere, while the Arc A350M has no listed predecessor or successor. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro's 384 tensor cores and 48 RT cores give it hardware acceleration features that the Arc A350M's 6 RT cores and absent tensor core count cannot match.