AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark matches between the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU and the Intel Arc A310E. Both entries show zero wins in direct comparison tests, and neither has an average benchmark score or a list of nearest rivals. This absence of direct measurements means the comparison must rely on the architectural and specification data recorded for each part.

The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU delivers 1.638 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. That places the Intel part at roughly 87.5% higher raw floating-point throughput. The texture rate tells a similar story: 51.20 GTexel/s for the AMD part versus 64.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a lead of about 25% for Intel. Pixel rate also favors Intel at 32.00 GPixel/s against 25.60 GPixel/s, an advantage of exactly 25%.

The AMD part pulls ahead in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus provides 176.0 GB/s, while the Intel Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus for 124.0 GB/s. The AMD memory bandwidth advantage is roughly 42% higher. That bandwidth gap can matter in texture-heavy scenes or when working with large framebuffers, though the Intel part's higher compute rates may compensate in other workloads.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU runs at a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1600 MHz. The Intel Arc A310E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The Intel part's higher clocks contribute directly to its compute, texture, and pixel rate advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A310E, at 3.072 TFLOPS, versus 1.638 TFLOPS for the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU. The Intel part delivers approximately 87.5% more FP32 throughput.

Q: How do memory capacities compare?

A: The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5, while the Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6. The AMD part offers four times the capacity.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU, with 176.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, versus 124.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus for the Intel Arc A310E. The AMD advantage is approximately 42%.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc A310E is rated at 75 W TDP. The Intel part consumes five times the power.

Q: What ray tracing hardware does each GPU include?

A: The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU has 8 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A310E has 6 ray tracing cores, despite its higher compute throughput.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 768 shading units, while the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU has 512. Both parts have 32 texture mapping units and 16 raster output units.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates a clear split between the two parts. The Intel Arc A310E wins on raw compute metrics: FP32 throughput, texture rate, pixel rate, shading units, and clock speed. It also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD part supports Vulkan 1.3. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU wins on memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and power efficiency. Its 16 GB frame buffer is four times larger, and its 15 W TDP is one-fifth of the Intel part's 75 W rating.

For workloads where compute throughput dominates, such as general-purpose GPU compute or rendering tasks that scale with shader count, the Intel Arc A310E has the advantage in the recorded metrics. For workloads where memory capacity and bandwidth are the limiting factors, or where power draw is a hard constraint, the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU is the stronger choice. The AMD part also has a smaller physical footprint at 298 mm length, 117 mm height, and 49 mm width, versus 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width for the Intel part, though the Intel card is single-slot and requires no power connectors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU uses the Sephiroth chip, while the Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip. Transistor counts differ sharply: 2,400 million for AMD versus 7,200 million for Intel, on die sizes of 131 mm² and 157 mm² respectively. Transistor density is 18.3M per mm² for AMD and 45.9M per mm² for Intel.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The AMD part uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 at 1375 MHz with 11 Gbps effective speed, on a 128-bit bus. The Intel part uses 4 GB of GDDR6 at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective speed, on a 64-bit bus. The AMD part provides 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth; the Intel part provides 124.0 GB/s.

Clocks diverge as well. The AMD part has a 1000 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. The Intel part has a flat 2000 MHz base and boost. Pixel rates are 25.60 GPixel/s for AMD and 32.00 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rates are 51.20 GTexel/s for AMD and 64.00 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32 is 1.638 TFLOPS for AMD and 3.072 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16 is 3.277 TFLOPS for AMD and 6.144 TFLOPS for Intel, both at a 2:1 ratio.

The AMD part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. TDP ratings are 15 W for AMD and 75 W for Intel. The Intel part is single-slot, has no power connectors, suggests a 250 W PSU, and uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The AMD part lists no slot width, power connectors, PSU suggestion, or bus interface. Display outputs differ: the AMD part has 1x USB Type-C, while the Intel part has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.

The AMD part is listed as Active in production status, released on 2023-11-08. The Intel part is End-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage. The AMD part has no listed predecessor or successor. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture, also fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Both share the same process node and foundry, but the underlying designs differ fundamentally.

The AMD part is classified as a Console GPU from Valve, while the Intel part belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The AMD part's transistor density is 18.3M per mm², while the Intel part achieves 45.9M per mm². That density difference reflects the Intel die packing 7,200 million transistors into 157 mm², versus 2,400 million into 131 mm² for AMD.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support differs: the AMD part supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part has a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface; the AMD part has no listed bus interface. The Intel part uses GDDR6 memory, while the AMD part uses LPDDR5. The Intel part has fewer ray tracing cores at 6, compared to 8 for AMD, despite having more shading units. The Intel part also carries a successor in Battlemage, indicating an active development path, while the AMD part has no successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310E wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 3.072 TFLOPS is nearly double the AMD part's 1.638 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 64.00 GTexel/s beats 51.20 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s beats 25.60 GPixel/s. The 768 shading units versus 512 give it more parallel execution lanes. The flat 2000 MHz clock, applied to both base and boost, means sustained performance without clock variation. The four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs make it suited to multi-display setups. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides a modern host connection. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is a generation ahead of the AMD part's Vulkan 1.3.

The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU wins in memory-bound and power-constrained scenarios. Its 16 GB of LPDDR5 is four times the capacity of the Intel part's 4 GB, which matters for large textures, high-resolution assets, or workloads that need substantial frame buffer headroom. Its 176.0 GB/s bandwidth is about 42% higher than the Intel part's 124.0 GB/s. Its 15 W TDP is one-fifth of the Intel part's 75 W draw, making it suitable for low-power or thermally limited environments. The 8 ray tracing cores exceed the Intel part's 6, giving it an advantage in ray-traced workloads per the recorded hardware counts. Its Active production status suggests continued availability, while the Intel part is End-of-life. The AMD part's smaller physical dimensions, 298 mm by 117 mm by 49 mm, contrast with the Intel part's 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, though the Intel part is single-slot and requires no external power connectors.

The data does not record any direct benchmark wins for either part, so these conclusions rest entirely on the specification-level comparisons. The Intel part is the compute leader. The AMD part is the memory-capacity, bandwidth, power-efficiency, and ray-tracing-core leader. The choice between them depends on which of those priorities matters more for the intended workload.