OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v1.0: technical specifications plus authentic consumer ratings, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v1.0

Intel ARC Pro A50 Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£270VRAM:6 GBMemory bus width:96 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):75 W

Intel ARC Pro A50 Review: Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

5.0/10

Overall score

Score
5.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the graphics card's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best graphics cards on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

90%

5.0

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 86% of graphics cards
6.3

Value for money

Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

â–¼Worse than 85%
5.0

Technical score

Technical score
5.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

3.4

Memory

12%

6.8

Power & Cooling

11%

9.1

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity & Media

â–¼Worse than 83%
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image
Best prices
    N/A~ £270
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Intel ARC Pro A50

Technical score
Technical score
5.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

3.4

Memory

12%

6.8

Power & Cooling

11%

9.1

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity & Media

5.0
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you prefer a graphics card that has already been chosen and reviewed by many other users.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel ARC Pro A50 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is lower than that of 57.7% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components:

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

6.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
?
3DMark Port Royal score
2,500 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 2,500 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 79.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
?
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,258 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,258 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 89.3% of graphics cards.
Floating-point performance
5.02 TFLOPS
Market range: <4.38 TFLOPS – >57.42 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 5.02 TFLOPS floating-point performance, which is lower than that of 88.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
6 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 6 GB of VRAM, which is less than 82.6% of graphics cards and equal to 5.2% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
GDDR version
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 15.9% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
96 bit
Market range: <64 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 96 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 95.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.4% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
192 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 192 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 87.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.3% of graphics cards and equal to 52.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 76.7% of graphics cards and equal to 22.2% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.6% of graphics cards and equal to 77.4% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.7% of graphics cards and equal to 79.3% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 1.9% of graphics cards and equal to 98.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 8.3% of graphics cards and equal to 88.9% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 91% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
4
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 4 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 97.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2, which is more advanced than on 66.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
10 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 10 Gbps, which is slower than on 63.1% of graphics cards and equal to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
75 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 75 W, which is lower than that of 90.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.7% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
75 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 75 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to 2.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
350 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 350 W PSU, which is lower than that of 93.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
75 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 75 W, which is lower than that of 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
Size
168x 69x 40 mm
Length
168 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 168 mm long, which is shorter than 95.6% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Height
40 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 40 mm tall, which is shorter than 98.8% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 53.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 42.5% of graphics cards.
Weight
618 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 618 g, which is lighter than 86.6% of graphics cards.
Show more

Intel ARC Pro A50 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryPlatform & FeaturesConnectivity & MediaPower & CoolingDesign
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 117 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (168 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    168 mm vs 285 mm
  • 85 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (40 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    40 mm vs 125 mm
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • 66.7% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    75 W vs 225 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 96.3% cheaper
    Intel ARC Pro A50 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£270 vs £530).
    £270 vs £530
  • Better FP64 ratio
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:4 vs 1:64).
    1:4 vs 1:64
  • 6.8% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2050 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,050 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 2.5x higher FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP64 performance than the average graphics card (1.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    1.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 46.8% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (157 mm² vs 295 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 295 mm².
    157 mm² vs 295 mm²
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2 vs 1.4a).
    2.0 vs 1.4a
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • 66.7% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    75 W vs 225 W
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 117 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (168 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    168 mm vs 285 mm
  • 85 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (40 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    40 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 160 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (96 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    96 bit vs 256 bit
  • 6 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (6 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    6 GB vs 12 GB
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 32 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    8 vs 40
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 4.22x less popular
    Intel ARC Pro A50 is less popular than the average graphics card (1 vs 4.2).
    1 vs 4.22
  • 15.1% worse value for money
    Intel ARC Pro A50 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.25 vs 7.2).
    6.25 vs 7.2
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 32 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    8 vs 40
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 18.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2050 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    2,050 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 60.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (150.4 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    150.4 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s
  • 53.9% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (75.2 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
    75.2 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 77.8% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (5 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
    5.02 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
  • 72.7% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (2500 points vs 9166 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9166 points.
    2,500 points vs 9,166 points
  • 73% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3258 points vs 12074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12074 points.
    3,258 points vs 12,074 points
  • 16 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (128 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    128 vs 144
  • 78.2% lower compute throughput
    This graphics card has a lower compute throughput than the average graphics card (5 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
    5.02 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS
  • 67.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (9.6 TFLOPS vs 29.7 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.725 TFLOPS.
    9.63 TFLOPS vs 29.725 TFLOPS
  • 3,328 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,024 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,024 vs 4,352
  • 160 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (96 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    96 bit vs 256 bit
  • 6 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (6 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    6 GB vs 12 GB
  • 57.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (192 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    192 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 15.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (16000 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 MHz.
    16,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • 20% larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (6 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    6 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older encoder generation
    This graphics card uses an older encoder generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 8). The average graphics card uses encoder generation 8.
    1.0 vs 8
  • 1 older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    August 2022
    2,022 vs 2,023
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.6 vs 6.8).
    6.6 vs 6.8
  • 68.6% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (7200 million vs 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 million transistors.
    7,200 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1).
    2.0b vs 2.1
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Narrower decode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
    H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No overclocking support
    This graphics card does not support overclocking, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 13 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (50 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    50 °C vs 37 °C
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

A
aecmag.com
22/12/2022
Summary of the review
Exclusive review: Intel Arc Pro A40 / A50 - AEC Magazine
D
develop3d.com
09/02/2023
Summary of the review
Exclusive review: Intel Arc Pro A40 / A50 - DEVELOP3D
B
bina-i.com
22/12/2022
Summary of the review
Exclusive review: Intel Arc Pro A40 / A50 | - Bina Initiatives develop3d

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel ARC Pro A50

  • Competitive entry-level performance for CAD and BIM workflows, often edging out competitors like the AMD Radeon Pro W6400 in 4K benchmarks
  • Includes dedicated ray tracing hardware, which provides a significant advantage over similarly priced entry-level NVIDIA T-series cards
  • Excellent value for its price-to-performance ratio in professional applications
  • Compact dual-slot design with low power consumption (75W TDP) that does not require external power connectors
  • Advanced video encoding capabilities, including hardware-accelerated AV1 and HEVC support

What we don't like about Intel ARC Pro A50

  • Limited 6GB VRAM can struggle with large 3D models or real-time visualisation tasks in 4K
  • Driver maturity remains a concern, with reports of occasional instability and less polish compared to AMD or NVIDIA
  • Professional performance controls and tuning features are often restricted compared to consumer-grade Arc cards
  • Inconsistent performance across different software titles, particularly with legacy or non-optimised applications
  • Can experience higher idle temperatures and power draw in certain multi-monitor configurations

Verdict

The Intel Arc Pro A50 is a professional-grade workstation GPU based on the Xe-HPG architecture and a 6nm TSMC process, featuring 8 Ray Tracing units and 128 Xe Matrix Extension (XMX) engines for AI-accelerated workflows. This dual-slot, low-profile card is equipped with 6GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit interface, providing 192 GB/s of bandwidth, and operates at a graphics clock of 2050 MHz with a maximum 75W TDP that requires no external power connectors. Its main advantages include built-in hardware ray tracing, AV1 hardware encoding/decoding, and support for up to four 4K displays via mini-DisplayPort 2.0, making it highly efficient for CAD, BIM, and AI inference tasks in small-form-factor systems. However, its 6GB VRAM can be a bottleneck for complex 4K visualization, and it generally lags behind more expensive professional rivals like the Nvidia RTX A2000 in raw rendering performance.

Compare Intel ARC Pro A50 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel ARC Pro A50 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found