AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU and the Intel Arc A310E. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the wins tally for each product is likewise zero. This absence of empirical data means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences captured in the database.

The AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU carries a peak FP32 throughput of 12.15 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at approximately four times the raw floating-point output of the Intel part. In FP16, the AMD GPU reaches 24.29 TFLOPS (2:1), whereas the Intel Arc A310E attains 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1). The ratio remains consistent, confirming the AMD part's dominant compute position.

Pixel throughput tells a similar story. The AMD GPU renders at 116.8 GPixel/s, compared to 32.00 GPixel/s for the Intel Arc A310E. Texture fill rate shows an even wider gap: 379.6 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s. These figures indicate the AMD part processes roughly 3.7 times the pixels and 5.9 times the textures per second. Memory bandwidth amplifies the disparity: 560.0 GB/s on the AMD side against 124.0 GB/s on the Intel side, a factor of 4.5.

Neither product has nearest rivals listed in the database, so percentile comparisons against specific competitors cannot be drawn. Both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, a neutral placement that reflects the absence of benchmark scores rather than any measured performance tier.

FAQ

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU uses 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus. The Intel Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has a fixed clock of 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU has no base or boost clock listed in the database; its memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes. Both the AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU and the Intel Arc A310E list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support. They also both support OpenGL 4.6. The Intel part additionally lists Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part lists Vulkan 1.2.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: The AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU measures 301 mm in length, 151 mm in height, and 151 mm in width. The Intel Arc A310E measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU has a TDP of 200 W. The Intel Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU rating of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc A310E includes 6 ray tracing cores. The AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU does not list a ray tracing core count in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU is built on RDNA 2.0, using the Scarlett 6nm chip. The Intel Arc A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip from the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. Both are fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: 15,300 million for the AMD part versus 7,200 million for the Intel part. The Intel die measures 157 mm² with a transistor density of 45.9M per mm², while the AMD die size is listed as unknown.

The compute core layouts differ fundamentally. The AMD GPU contains 3328 shading units, 208 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Intel Arc A310E contains 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These counts explain the substantial fill rate and compute gaps observed earlier. The AMD part has no ray tracing core count listed, while the Intel part has 6 dedicated ray tracing cores. Neither product lists tensor cores.

Memory architecture is another point of divergence. The AMD GPU uses a 320-bit bus with GDDR6 memory, achieving 560.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses a 64-bit bus with GDDR6 memory, achieving 124.0 GB/s. The memory clocks also differ: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for AMD, 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for Intel. Despite the higher clock on the Intel part, the narrower bus limits its total bandwidth to roughly a quarter of the AMD part's.

The API support shows a generational difference. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Intel Arc A310E supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU supports Vulkan 1.2. This indicates newer driver-level feature support on the Intel side, though it does not compensate for the compute and memory gaps.

Specification Differences

The database records several fields where the two products differ. Process node and foundry are identical (6 nm, TSMC), but everything else diverges.

Transistor count: 15,300 million (AMD) versus 7,200 million (Intel). Die size: unknown (AMD) versus 157 mm² (Intel). Transistor density: not listed for AMD, 45.9M / mm² for Intel.

Clocks: The AMD part has no base or boost clock listed, with a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The Intel part has a base clock of 2000 MHz, a boost clock of 2000 MHz, and a memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Memory: 10 GB GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 560.0 GB/s bandwidth (AMD) versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth (Intel).

Compute units: 3328 shading units, 208 TMUs, 64 ROPs (AMD) versus 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs (Intel). Ray tracing cores: none listed (AMD) versus 6 (Intel).

Rates: Pixel rate 116.8 GPixel/s (AMD) versus 32.00 GPixel/s (Intel). Texture rate 379.6 GTexel/s (AMD) versus 64.00 GTexel/s (Intel). FP32 12.15 TFLOPS (AMD) versus 3.072 TFLOPS (Intel). FP16 24.29 TFLOPS (AMD) versus 6.144 TFLOPS (Intel).

Power and physical: TDP 200 W (AMD) versus 75 W (Intel). Slot width: not listed (AMD) versus single-slot (Intel). Power connectors: not listed (AMD) versus none (Intel). Suggested PSU: not listed (AMD) versus 250 W (Intel). Bus interface: not listed (AMD) versus PCIe 4.0 x8 (Intel).

Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 (AMD) versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 (Intel). Dimensions: 301 mm x 151 mm x 151 mm (AMD) versus 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm (Intel).

Production status: Active (AMD) versus end-of-life (Intel). Release dates: 2024-10-14 (AMD) versus 2024-03-31 (Intel). The Intel part has a predecessor listed as Xe Graphics and a successor as Battlemage; the AMD part has neither.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU delivers 12.15 TFLOPS FP32, 116.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, 379.6 GTexel/s texture rate, and 560.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, 32.00 GPixel/s, 64.00 GTexel/s, and 124.0 GB/s. Every compute and memory metric in the database favors the AMD part by a factor of roughly four to five.

The Intel Arc A310E counters with a lower TDP of 75 W versus 200 W, a smaller physical footprint (168 mm length versus 301 mm), and a single-slot design. It also includes 6 ray tracing cores, which the AMD part does not list, and supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2 on the AMD side. These advantages are real but narrower in scope than the compute and bandwidth gaps.

The production status differs significantly: the AMD part is active, while the Intel part is end-of-life with a designated successor (Battlemage). The AMD part carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD, stated once here. The Intel part has no launch MSRP recorded.

For applications that depend on raw throughput, memory bandwidth, and pixel/texture fill rates, the AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU is the stronger option based on the database records. For scenarios that prioritize low power draw, compact dimensions, and ray tracing capability, the Intel Arc A310E holds the advantage. There is no benchmark data to override these specification-based conclusions.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Xbox Series X 6nm GPU: The data shows this part wins decisively in raw compute. FP32 throughput of 12.15 TFLOPS is four times the Intel part's 3.072 TFLOPS. FP16 at 24.29 TFLOPS doubles that lead. Memory bandwidth of 560.0 GB/s supports high-resolution textures and large data sets, while 10 GB of GDDR6 provides more capacity than 4 GB. The 320-bit bus enables this bandwidth, and the 208 TMUs and 64 ROPs drive the 379.6 GTexel/s and 116.8 GPixel/s rates. This part suits workloads that saturate the GPU with heavy shading, high polygon counts, and large framebuffers. The active production status also indicates ongoing availability.

Intel Arc A310E: The data shows this part wins on efficiency and form factor. A TDP of 75 W is 125 W lower than the AMD part's 200 W, reducing system power requirements. The suggested PSU of 250 W reflects this modest demand. The card measures 168 mm in length, less than half the AMD part's 301 mm, and occupies a single slot with no external power connectors. This makes it suitable for compact or low-power systems. The 6 ray tracing cores provide dedicated hardware for ray-traced effects, a feature absent from the AMD part's listed specifications. Vulkan 1.4 support indicates a newer API baseline than the AMD part's Vulkan 1.2. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs offer multi-display flexibility, whereas the AMD part provides a single HDMI 2.1 output.

The division is stark: the AMD part dominates performance metrics, while the Intel part dominates power, size, and specific feature sets. Neither product shows benchmark scores in the database, so these conclusions derive from the recorded specifications alone.