Intel Arc A370M vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998 points, while the Intel Arc A370M scores 29,676 points. That is a 125.8% advantage for the NVIDIA part, meaning the RTX A2000 more than doubles the Arc A370M's raw compute output in this OpenCL workload. The margin is substantial enough that no amount of driver tuning or workload selection is likely to close the gap in this specific test.

Looking at broader database averages, the RTX A2000 holds an average benchmark score of 34,154 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs. The Arc A370M averages 29,175, sitting in the 74th percentile. The five-percentile gap reflects a real, but not overwhelming, performance tier difference. The RTX A2000's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133, a 0.1% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34,207, a -0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997, a 0.5% delta), and the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355, a -0.6% delta). These are all essentially statistical ties, meaning the RTX A2000 sits in a dense performance cluster where small score differences separate cards.

The Arc A370M's nearest rivals tell a different story. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH scores 29,197 (-0.1% delta), the AMD FirePro W8000 scores 29,211 (-0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 470 scores 28,996 (0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 28,874 (1% delta). The Arc A370M is the top performer in this particular group, but only by a narrow margin. The data suggests the Intel part competes with mid-range AMD graphics from several generations ago, while the NVIDIA card trades blows with much higher-tier desktop parts.

The RTX A2000 also has a second benchmark entry in the database: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where it scores 1,309 points. The Arc A370M has no corresponding entry for that test, so direct comparison in modern DirectX 12 rasterization is not possible from the recorded data. However, the OpenCL gap of 125.8% is consistent with the average score disparity: 34,154 versus 29,175 is a 17.1% difference in favor of the NVIDIA card. The single head-to-head test shows a much larger gap than the averages suggest, indicating that the Arc A370M may perform relatively better in some workloads and much worse in others.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, but not absolute, hierarchy. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB outperforms the Intel Arc A370M in the one directly comparable benchmark by 125.8%, and it holds a higher average score across the database (34,154 versus 29,175). The NVIDIA card also claims a higher percentile ranking (79th versus 74th). For any compute-heavy OpenCL workload, the RTX A2000 is the unambiguous choice based on recorded measurements.

However, the Arc A370M is not without its own context. It is a mobile part with a 35 W TDP, while the RTX A2000 is a dual-slot desktop card with a 70 W TDP. The Intel GPU achieves its performance at half the power envelope. For a system where power draw is the primary constraint, the Arc A370M's efficiency profile is notable. The database does not include a direct power-normalized performance metric, so the exact trade-off cannot be quantified here, but the raw numbers show the Intel part delivers 86.6% of the NVIDIA card's average score while consuming half the power.

The RTX A2000 is the better GPU for absolute performance. It also offers 12 GB of memory versus 4 GB, a 192-bit bus versus 64-bit, and 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s. These memory advantages compound the compute lead. The Arc A370M wins on power efficiency and physical footprint, being an IGP-class solution with no slot width, while the RTX A2000 requires a dual-slot bracket and a 250 W suggested PSU. The choice depends on whether the system can accommodate the NVIDIA card's larger footprint and power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip built on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The Intel Arc A370M uses the DG2-128 chip fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm node, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, for a density of 45.9 million per mm². Intel's chip is smaller and denser, but it also has far fewer resources to work with.

The NVIDIA card features 3,328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. It includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, making it a full-featured Ampere workstation part. The Intel Arc A370M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor core count listed in the database. The compute throughput reflects this: the RTX A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS FP32, while the Arc A370M delivers 4.198 TFLOPS FP32. Interestingly, the Intel part offers 8.397 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card matches its FP32 rate at 7.987 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). This means the Arc A370M actually has a higher theoretical FP16 throughput, which could matter for certain AI or graphics workloads that leverage half-precision math.

Clock speeds also diverge significantly. The RTX A2000 runs at a 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost, which are low for a modern GPU, reflecting its workstation power target. The Arc A370M runs at 1550 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, nearly double the NVIDIA card's clocks. Despite the clock disadvantage, the NVIDIA GPU still wins decisively in OpenCL due to its larger execution resource pool. The Arc A370M's higher clocks help it achieve respectable pixel and texture rates: 65.60 GPixel/s and 131.2 GTexel/s, versus 57.60 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s for the RTX A2000. In fill-rate limited scenarios, the Intel part could narrow the gap.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The RTX A2000 uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), yielding 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), yielding 112.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has 2.57 times the memory bandwidth, which directly impacts texture streaming, large dataset handling, and high-resolution rendering. The Intel part's smaller bus width is a significant handicap for memory-intensive workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the only directly comparable benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel Arc A370M scores 29,676. The NVIDIA card leads by 125.8%.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A2000 has an average score of 34,154 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 79th percentile. The Arc A370M averages 29,175, placing it in the 74th percentile. The NVIDIA card is 17.1% higher on average.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU in the database?

A: The RTX A2000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A1000 at 34,207 (-0.2% delta), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT at 34,133 (0.1% delta). The Arc A370M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29,197 (-0.1% delta), with the AMD FirePro W8000 at 29,211 (-0.1% delta).

Q: Does the Intel Arc A370M have any advantage in compute throughput?

A: Yes, in FP16 performance. The Arc A370M delivers 8.397 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part has higher theoretical half-precision throughput.

Q: How do memory capacities and bandwidth differ?

A: The RTX A2000 has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has 3 times the memory capacity and 2.57 times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, with no external power connectors. The Arc A370M has a 35 W TDP and no PSU requirement listed, as it is an IGP-class mobile part.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB wins in every recorded benchmark category where both GPUs have data. It leads OpenCL by 125.8%, boasts a higher average score, higher percentile ranking, and far superior memory subsystem. The 12 GB frame buffer and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for large datasets, multi-layer rendering, or workstation applications that need to hold substantial geometry and texture data in VRAM. The 104 tensor cores also give it a dedicated advantage for AI-accelerated workloads, although no direct benchmark in the database isolates this capability.

The Intel Arc A370M wins in two specific areas: power efficiency and FP16 throughput. At 35 W TDP, it draws exactly half the power of the RTX A2000's 70 W. For a thin-and-light laptop or a compact system with no discrete power connector, the Arc A370M is the only viable choice of the two, as the RTX A2000 requires a dual-slot bracket and a 250 W suggested PSU. The Arc A370M's higher FP16 rate (8.397 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS) could provide a theoretical edge in half-precision compute tasks, though the database does not include a direct FP16 benchmark comparison.

The Arc A370M also has higher pixel and texture fill rates: 65.60 GPixel/s and 131.2 GTexel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card. In pure rasterization throughput, the Intel part is not far behind, despite having far fewer shading units. This suggests that the Arc A370M could be competitive in simple 2D or low-complexity 3D rendering, where fill rate matters more than shader compute. The RTX A2000 compensates with 3.25 times the shading units, making it the stronger choice for shader-heavy effects, ray tracing, and compute workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB | Intel Arc A370M |

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

| Chip | GA106 | DG2-128 |

| Architecture | Ampere | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) | Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) |

| Process node | 8 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 12,000 million | 7,200 million |

| Die size | 276 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor density | 43.5M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 562 MHz | 1550 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1200 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 12 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory bus | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 3328 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 104 | 64 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Ray tracing cores | 26 | 8 |

| Tensor cores | 104 | null |

| Pixel rate | 57.60 GPixel/s | 65.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 124.8 GTexel/s | 131.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.987 TFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 70 W | 35 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 167 mm (6.6 inches) x 69 mm (2.7 inches) | null |

| Release date | 2021-11-22 | 2022-03-29 |

| Launch MSRP | 449 USD | null |