Intel Arc A370M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The Intel Arc A370M and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 represent two vastly different approaches to GPU design, and the benchmark data confirms they occupy entirely different performance tiers. In the head-to-head comparison, the Quadro RTX 8000 secures a decisive victory in both available tests, with the Arc A370M trailing by 70.9% in Geekbench OpenCL and 76.6% in Geekbench Vulkan. These are not marginal differences; they reflect a fundamental gap in raw compute capability and memory bandwidth that no architectural efficiency can bridge. The data shows a clear hierarchy, but the specifics of each card’s design make the comparison more nuanced than a simple scoreboard.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the first major data point: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883, while the Intel Arc A370M manages 29,676. That is a 70.9% deficit for the Intel part, meaning the Quadro delivers roughly 3.4 times the OpenCL performance. This is not a close contest by any stretch. The Quadro’s lead stems from its massive 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, which dwarfs the Arc’s 4.198 TFLOPS. In practical terms, any compute workload that scales with shader throughput—rendering, physics simulation, or general GPGPU tasks—will favor the NVIDIA card overwhelmingly.

The Vulkan test shows an even wider gap. The Quadro RTX 8000 scores 122,637, versus 28,673 for the Arc A370M, a 76.6% difference. Interestingly, the Quadro’s Vulkan score is notably higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the Turing architecture’s driver and hardware scheduling handle Vulkan’s explicit command model particularly well. The Arc, by contrast, shows a slight regression from OpenCL to Vulkan (29,676 to 28,673), indicating that its Xe-HPG architecture does not gain the same efficiency boost from the lower-level API. For gamers or developers targeting Vulkan, the Quadro’s advantage expands further.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, both cards sit at the 74th percentile among all GPUs, yet their average scores tell different stories. The Arc A370M averages 29,175, while the Quadro RTX 8000 averages 28,421. This is a remarkable inversion: the Quadro has a higher peak in both head-to-head tests but a lower average benchmark score. The explanation lies in the Quadro’s PassMark results, which include weak DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 scores (137 and 79, respectively) that drag down its average. The Arc, lacking PassMark data, is assessed only on its two Geekbench results, which are consistent. This discrepancy highlights that average scores can be misleading without context—the Quadro’s compute prowess is undeniable, but its legacy DirectX performance is oddly poor.

The nearest rival data reinforces the mixed picture. The Arc A370M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, with a delta of just -0.1%, meaning the two are virtually identical in average score. The AMD FirePro W8000 and Radeon RX 470 are also within 0.6% of the Arc, placing it firmly in a mid-range cluster. The Quadro RTX 8000’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M295X, trails by -0.6%, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is 1.4% behind. These deltas are tiny, suggesting that the Quadro’s average score is not representative of its peak capability—it is an outlier-driven metric.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast. The Intel Arc A370M uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 6 nm process. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, by contrast, uses the TU102 chip on the older Turing architecture, built on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It houses 18,600 million transistors across a massive 754 mm² die, with a density of just 24.7M per mm². The Intel chip is smaller and denser, but the NVIDIA chip has 2.6 times more transistors, giving it a raw resource advantage that process efficiency cannot overcome.

Memory configuration further separates the two. The Arc A370M comes with 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 8000 offers 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s—six times the bandwidth and twelve times the capacity. For large datasets, such as high-resolution textures or AI model weights, the Quadro’s memory subsystem is in a different league. The clock speeds are similar (both run memory at 1750 MHz, or 14 Gbps effective), but the bus width disparity creates an insurmountable bandwidth gap.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The Arc A370M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, alongside 8 ray tracing cores. The Quadro RTX 8000 boasts 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores. The NVIDIA card has 4.5 times the shading units and 9 times the RT cores. The pixel rate tells the story: 65.60 GPixel/s for the Arc versus 169.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro. Texture rate is similarly lopsided at 131.2 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s. The Arc’s FP16 performance of 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is respectable for its class, but the Quadro’s 32.62 TFLOPS (also 2:1) is nearly four times higher.

Power and form factor differ drastically. The Arc A370M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 35 W TDP, designed for thin-and-light laptops. The Quadro RTX 8000 is a dual-slot discrete card with a 260 W TDP, requiring a 600 W suggested PSU and two power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin). The Quadro measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Arc’s dimensions are not specified—it is portable-device dependent. The bus interface also differs: the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The newer PCIe 4.0 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the Quadro’s extra lanes provide more total throughput in most systems.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator. The Quadro RTX 8000’s 576 tensor cores give it a clear edge in AI and deep learning workloads, as the Arc has no tensor cores listed. The Quadro also has a launch MSRP of 9,999 USD, though we will not delve into pricing implications here.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the superior performer in every head-to-head benchmark, with leads of 70.9% in OpenCL and 76.6% in Vulkan. Its 48 GB memory, 672.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 throughput make it a workstation-class powerhouse. For professionals handling large datasets, complex 3D scenes, or compute-intensive simulations, the Quadro is the only rational choice based on these results. The 576 tensor cores further extend its lead in AI inference, a capability the Arc lacks entirely.

The Intel Arc A370M, however, is not without merit. Its 35 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it can operate in systems where the Quadro’s 260 W requirement is impossible. For mobile workstations or ultraportable laptops, the Arc provides a baseline level of 3D acceleration that is 74th percentile among all GPUs. Its 4 GB memory is sufficient for light content creation or casual gaming, and its 8 RT cores offer entry-level ray tracing support. The Arc’s average benchmark score of 29,175 is actually higher than the Quadro’s 28,421, suggesting that for typical consumer workloads, the Intel part is more consistent.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. If the requirement is maximum compute performance, the Quadro RTX 8000 wins by a landslide. If the requirement is mobility and power efficiency, the Arc A370M is the only viable option. There is no middle ground—these GPUs are designed for different worlds, and the benchmarks reflect that schism.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, with 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 versus the Intel Arc A370M’s 4.198 TFLOPS. This translates to a 70.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 76.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro offers 12 times the capacity and 6 times the bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The Intel Arc A370M was released on 2022-03-29, and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 was released earlier on 2018-08-12.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Arc A370M has a 35 W TDP and is an IGP, while the Quadro RTX 8000 has a 260 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, and requires a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no difference in API feature level.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores. The Arc A370M has 8 RT cores but no tensor cores, limiting its AI workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A370M wins in scenarios that prioritize power efficiency and portability. Its 35 W TDP makes it suitable for ultraportable laptops, while the Quadro’s 260 W TDP requires a desktop chassis with robust cooling. The Arc’s smaller die size (157 mm² versus 754 mm²) and higher transistor density (45.9M per mm² versus 24.7M per mm²) indicate a more modern manufacturing process that yields better performance per watt. In mobile workloads—casual gaming, video playback, light photo editing—the Arc’s 4 GB memory and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate, and its 8 RT cores provide basic ray tracing capability that older integrated solutions lack.

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins in every performance-critical domain. Its 48 GB memory is essential for large-scale data processing, such as scientific visualization or deep learning training, where the Arc’s 4 GB would be exhausted immediately. The 576 tensor cores accelerate AI inference and training, a capability the Arc simply does not have. The Quadro’s 672.0 GB/s bandwidth and 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 throughput make it ideal for 3D rendering, video encoding, and complex simulations. The 72 RT cores deliver professional-grade ray tracing, while the 96 ROPs ensure high fill rates for high-resolution displays. In any benchmark where raw performance matters, the Quadro RTX 8000 is the definitive winner—the data shows a 70.9% to 76.6% margin, and no amount of architectural refinement in the Arc can close that gap.