AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs Intel Arc A380 Comparison

The Intel Arc A380 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 are both end-of-life entry-level GPUs, but the recorded data shows they are not in the same performance class. The A380 dominates every shared benchmark by a wide margin, while the WX 3100 holds only physical and power-footprint advantages. This comparison breaks down exactly where each card wins and why the gap is so large.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two head-to-head tests, and the Intel Arc A380 wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the A380 scores 38,224 against the WX 3100's 7,333. That is a delta of 421.3 percent in Intel's favor, roughly a five-fold difference. Geekbench Vulkan tells the same story: the A380 posts 36,736 while the WX 3100 manages 7,827, a 369.3 percent gap. The final tally is 2 wins for the A380 and 0 for the WX 3100, with no test in the shared set going AMD's way.

These are not close results that could swing with driver updates. A gap of several hundred percent reflects a fundamental difference in compute capability, and it lines up with the raw specifications: the A380 delivers 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput while the WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS, less than a third of the Intel card's output. The benchmark data simply confirms what the silicon already indicates.

For additional context within the database's overall rankings, the A380 sits at the 44th percentile versus all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 8,558, while the WX 3100 sits at the 41st percentile with an average score of 7,580. The percentile gap looks narrow, but the head-to-head numbers show how misleading aggregate percentiles can be at the low end of the chart, where compute-heavy tests like Geekbench OpenCL reward the A380's modern architecture disproportionately.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Arc A380 is the pick for anyone who cares about GPU compute or graphics performance. It swept both shared benchmarks with deltas exceeding 369 percent, and its specification sheet is newer and deeper across the board: twice the shading units (1024 vs 512), double the TMUs (64 vs 32), double the ROPs (32 vs 16), 6 GB of GDDR6 instead of 4 GB of GDDR5, and 186.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 only makes sense where its physical and electrical characteristics matter more than speed. It is a single-slot card with no external power connector, a 65 W TDP, and a compact 168 mm board length. The A380 is dual-slot, requires an 8-pin connector, runs a 75 W TDP, and stretches to 222 mm. In a cramped workstation with no spare power cable, the WX 3100's characteristics are simply easier to accommodate, even though it will deliver a fraction of the performance. Both cards carry the same 250 W suggested PSU figure, so platform power requirements do not differentiate them.

Both products are end-of-life, so this is a comparison for the used market or legacy system planning, not new builds.

Architecture Differences

The generational gap between these two cards explains the benchmark results. The A380 uses Intel's Xe-HPG architecture (Alchemist generation, Arc 3 class) on the DG2-128 chip, built on TSMC's 6 nm process. The WX 3100 uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture (Radeon Pro Polaris generation) on the Lexa chip, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node.

The density difference is stark: the A380 packs 7,200 million transistors into 157 mm² for 45.9M transistors per mm², while the WX 3100 carries 2,200 million transistors into 103 mm² for 21.4M per mm². The Intel card has more than triple the total transistor count on a node more than a full generation ahead.

Feature support also favors the A380. It has 8 dedicated ray tracing cores where the WX 3100 has none. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (feature level 12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 3100 stops at DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The A380 also brings FP16 throughput at a 2:1 ratio for 8.397 TFLOPS, whereas the WX 3100's FP16 runs at 1:1 for 1,248.3 GFLOPS, matching its FP32 rate.

The bus is another differentiator: PCIe 4.0 x8 on the A380 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 on the WX 3100. On the display side, the A380 offers HDMI 2.1 plus three DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the WX 3100 provides one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. Clock speeds also differ notably: the A380 runs a 2000 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, against 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost for the WX 3100, with memory at 15.5 Gbps effective versus 6 Gbps effective.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Arc A380 in compute benchmarks?

A: The A380 wins Geekbench OpenCL by 421.3 percent (38,224 vs 7,333) and Geekbench Vulkan by 369.3 percent (36,736 vs 7,827). It swept both shared tests.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing?

A: Only the Intel Arc A380, which has 8 ray tracing cores as part of its Xe-HPG architecture. The WX 3100 has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: Which card needs less power and no extra cables?

A: The WX 3100. It has a 65 W TDP, a single-slot design, and no power connectors at all. The A380 has a 75 W TDP, a dual-slot design, and requires one 8-pin connector. Both list the same 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus at 186.0 GB/s. The WX 3100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 96.00 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the A380 delivers nearly double the bandwidth thanks to much faster memory.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life in the database. The WX 3100 launched in 2017 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD, and the A380 launched in 2022 with a launch MSRP of 149 USD.

Q: How do they rank against other GPUs?

A: The A380 sits at the 44th percentile versus all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD FirePro W5170M (-0.4 percent) and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (+1.2 percent). The WX 3100 sits at the 41st percentile, near the AMD Radeon R7 250 (+0.3 percent) and Intel Arc A310 (+0.4 percent).

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A380 wins every performance-oriented use case in the recorded data. Its 421.3 percent OpenCL lead makes it the clear choice for GPU compute workloads, and its Vulkan lead of 369.3 percent covers modern graphics APIs. Its higher memory bandwidth (186.0 GB/s) and larger 6 GB buffer suit it better for texture-heavy work, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support plus ray tracing cores make it the only option of the two for newer rendering features. With pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s and texture rate of 131.2 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s, the raw rendering throughput gap mirrors the benchmark gap.

The WX 3100 wins on physical integration. Its single-slot, connector-free, 65 W design fits into systems that cannot host a dual-slot card with an 8-pin requirement, and its 168 mm length clears tight cases where the A380's 222 mm board would not. That is the extent of its advantages in the data; every measured performance metric favors Intel.

Specification Differences

• Manufacturer and chip: Intel DG2-128 vs AMD Lexa
• Architecture and generation: Xe-HPG (Alchemist, Arc 3) vs GCN 4.0 (Radeon Pro Polaris, WX x100)
• Process node and foundry: 6 nm at TSMC vs 14 nm at GlobalFoundries
• Transistors and die: 7,200 million on 157 mm² (45.9M/mm²) vs 2,200 million on 103 mm² (21.4M/mm²)
• Clocks: 2000 MHz base / 2050 MHz boost vs 925 MHz base / 1219 MHz boost; memory at 15.5 Gbps effective vs 6 Gbps effective
• Memory: 6 GB GDDR6, 96-bit, 186.0 GB/s vs 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit, 96.00 GB/s
• Shader resources: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 8 RT cores vs 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, no RT cores
• Throughput: 65.60 GPixel/s and 131.2 GTexel/s vs 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s; 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) vs 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1)
• Power and cooling: 75 W TDP, dual-slot, one 8-pin connector vs 65 W TDP, single-slot, no connectors; both suggest a 250 W PSU
• Bus and outputs: PCIe 4.0 x8 with HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 2.0 vs PCIe 3.0 x8 with one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 vs DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3; both support OpenGL 4.6
• Dimensions: 222 mm long, 114 mm tall, 42 mm wide vs 168 mm long, 69 mm tall
• Release and lineage: released in 2022, succeeded by Battlemage, preceded by Xe Graphics vs released in 2017, succeeded by Radeon Pro Vega, preceded by Radeon Pro GCN
• Launch MSRP: 149 USD for the Arc A380 vs 199 USD for the WX 3100