NVIDIA
NVIDIA Quadro P6000 vs Intel Arc A350M
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Intel Arc A350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P6000 and Intel Arc A350M across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Quadro P6000 outperforms Intel Arc A350M by ~18% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+18%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 16Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (~18%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Quadro P6000
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: CUDA / OpenCL · No dedicated hardware upscaling (DLSS unsupported)
Reasons to consider Intel Arc A350M
- Lower stated power consumption
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · XeSS
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
IntelPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
5933
79100
2755
10060
Graphics card ranking
Positions 25–30of 30
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
NVIDIA Quadro P6000
161 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
59Better
33
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
49Better
30
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
46Better
28
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
79
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
52Better
44
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
Interface
Memory busBetter
Memory type
Architecture
Device class
Process nodeBetter
Release date
VRAMBetter
Power consumptionBetter
HDMI
Vulkan
Compute API
TFLOPSBetter
Boost clockBetter
Length
Recommended PSU
USB Type-C
Max monitors
DirectX
OpenGL
Upscaling
Transistor countBetter
Die sizeBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Max resolution
Base clockBetter
Thickness
Power connector
Power consumption—
Launch price——
Memory cache—
Clock speed—
Memory frequency—
Memory bandwidth—
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Quadro P6000 and Intel Arc A350M across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
Quadro P6000Intel Arc A350M
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
—
164 FPS
1080p Ultra
—
116 FPS
1440p Ultra
—
62 FPS
4K Ultra
—
22 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Quadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M164 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M116 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M62 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M22 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Quadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M106 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M91 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M45 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M15 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Quadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M134 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M87 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M56 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M33 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M87 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M72 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M40 FPSQuadro P6000—Intel Arc A350M15 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100593357%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100654341%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100704152%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1001006050%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1007910023%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100774552%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100754452%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100704152%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100824852%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100714154%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX12 (feature level 12_1)12.2
VulkanVulkan 1.31.4
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNo dedicated hardware upscaling (DLSS unsupported)XeSS
Compute APICUDA / OpenCLOpenCL 3.0
Architecture and release
ArchitecturePascalXe HPG (Alchemist)
Process node16 nm6 nmBetter
Release date20162022
Device classProfMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count11.8 billionBetter7200 million
Die size471 mm²157 mm²Better
Shader units / cores3840 CUDA coresBetter768
Base clock1506 MHzBetter1150 MHz
Boost clock1645 MHz2200 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mmOEM dependent
ThicknessDual-slotIGP
Recommended PSU600 WOEM dependent
Power connector1× 8-pin PCIeIntegrated laptop power
Display outputs and limits
HDMI0 native (DisplayPort adapter supported)OEM dependent
DisplayPortDisplayPort 1.4OEM dependent
USB Type-CNot supportedOEM dependent
Max monitors4 simultaneous displaysOEM dependent
Max resolution7680×4320 at 30 Hz via DisplayPort 1.4Depends on host system
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM24 GBBetter4 GB GDDR6
Memory typeGDDR5XGDDR6
Memory bus384-bitBetter64 bit
TFLOPS12.0Better3.379
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 16
- Specifications
- 0 / 63
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (3)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (1)
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Quadro P6000 or Intel Arc A350M?+
Quadro P6000 has the higher overall gaming score, while Intel Arc A350M offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Quadro P6000 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
Quadro P6000 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Quadro P6000 offers more overall performance, while Quadro P6000 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Quadro P6000 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Intel Arc A350M is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Quadro P6000 leads in combined 1440p performance. Quadro P6000 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Quadro P6000 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Intel Arc A350M is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Intel Arc A350M is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Quadro P6000 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.