Arc Pro A30M vs Quadro FX 4600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4600 with Arc Pro A30M, including specs and performance data.

FX 4600
2007
768 MB GDDR3, 134 Watt
1.11

Arc Pro A30M outperforms FX 4600 by a whopping 1268% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking1085347
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameG80DG2-128
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date5 March 2007 (17 years ago)8 August 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores961024
Core clock speed500 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data2000 MHz
Number of transistors681 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)134 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate24.00128.0
Floating-point performance0.2304 gflops4.096 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount768 MB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz16 GB/s
Memory bandwidth67.2 GB/s128.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX 4600 1.11
Arc Pro A30M 15.19
+1268%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

FX 4600 430
Arc Pro A30M 5862
+1263%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.11 15.19
Recency 5 March 2007 8 August 2022
Maximum RAM amount 768 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 134 Watt 50 Watt

Arc Pro A30M has a 1268.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 1400% more advanced lithography process, and 168% lower power consumption.

The Arc Pro A30M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4600 is a workstation card while Arc Pro A30M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600
Quadro FX 4600
Intel Arc Pro A30M
Arc Pro A30M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 12 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 6 votes

Rate Arc Pro A30M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.