GPU Comparison

The comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M and the Intel Arc A310 is a study in generational extremes, pitting a 2014 mobile flagship against a 2022 entry-level desktop part. While both cards now sit in the end-of-life category, the data reveals a decisive shift in performance, efficiency, and architectural philosophy. The benchmark results are not close; they represent a fundamental leap in compute capability, though the older card retains some distinct advantages in specific legacy scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the results are starkly lopsided. The Intel Arc A310 scores 30,607 points, while the NVIDIA GTX 880M manages just 5,622 points. This translates to a deltaPct of -81.6% from the perspective of the GTX 880M, meaning the Intel card is roughly 5.4 times faster in this compute-oriented test. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational wipeout that reflects the massive improvements in shader efficiency and driver maturity for compute workloads since 2014.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the gap narrows considerably but still favors Intel. The Arc A310 posts an average benchmark score of 7,550, while the GTX 880M achieves 8,040. This inversion, where the OpenCL result heavily favors Intel but the average score slightly favors NVIDIA, suggests that the GTX 880M holds up better in other, unspecified test suites. The nearest rivals for each card confirm their respective performance tiers. The GTX 880M sits within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P5000, GTX 650 Ti, and GTX 650 Ti Boost, indicating it performs in line with that mid-2010s desktop class. The Arc A310, meanwhile, is within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon R7 250 and Radeon Pro WX 3100, and notably 1% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1650. This places the Arc A310 in a different, more modern performance bracket, despite its lower average score relative to the 880M.

The Intel card also shows a dramatic split between its OpenCL and Vulkan scores in its own benchmark suite, hitting 30,607 in OpenCL and 28,964 in Vulkan. These numbers dwarf the GTX 880M’s OpenCL result, yet the NVIDIA card’s average score suggests it must excel in other tests not present in the head-to-head data. The Passmark results for the Arc A310 are revealing: it scores a dismal 31 in DirectX 10, 33 in DirectX 11, and 29 in DirectX 12, but jumps to 69 in DirectX 9 and 625 in the G2D test. This erratic pattern suggests that the Arc A310’s raw compute power does not translate uniformly to rasterization performance in older APIs, which may explain why its average score trails the GTX 880M despite the massive OpenCL lead.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is cavernous. The GTX 880M is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². In contrast, the Intel Arc A310 uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, fabricated on a much more advanced 6 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer node allows Intel to fit 7,200 million transistors, more than double NVIDIA’s count, onto a smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a density of 45.9M per mm². The density difference is a direct measure of process technology advancement, with Intel packing nearly four times more transistors per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems tell a similar story of divergence. The GTX 880M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Arc A310, by contrast, has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a much narrower 64-bit bus, resulting in 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth at a 1937 MHz clock (15.5 Gbps effective). Despite the newer memory type, the narrower bus means the Intel card actually has 22.5% less bandwidth than the older NVIDIA card. This is a critical trade-off: the Arc A310 compensates with higher clocks and faster memory, but the GTX 880M’s wider bus gives it a raw throughput advantage that may benefit certain bandwidth-hungry workloads.

Core configurations differ fundamentally in scale and function. The GTX 880M features 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The Arc A310 has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but it includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores. This means the Intel card has half the shader count but adds hardware for ray tracing, a feature the Kepler architecture lacks entirely. The FP32 compute figures reflect this: the GTX 880M delivers 3.050 TFLOPS, while the Arc A310 manages 2.688 TFLOPS. Interestingly, the Intel card also lists FP16 performance of 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1), a capability the NVIDIA card does not expose in the data.

Power and interface differences are equally pronounced. The GTX 880M has a TDP of 122 W and uses an MXM Module form factor with an MXM-B (3.0) interface, drawing power through the slot with no additional connectors. The Arc A310 is far more efficient, with a TDP of just 30 W, a Single-slot design, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. It also lists a suggested PSU of 200 W, though its actual power draw is a fraction of the NVIDIA card’s. The display outputs also differ: the GTX 880M’s are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the Arc A310 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0, indicating a modern desktop-oriented connectivity suite.

The API support further highlights the generational gap. The GTX 880M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation for Intel implies feature-level support for ray tracing and variable rate shading, which the NVIDIA card cannot match due to its older architecture. The Vulkan version difference (1.4 vs 1.2.175) also indicates a more modern driver stack on the Intel side.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 30,607 versus the GTX 880M’s 5,622 shows a 444% advantage, making it the clear choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan compute acceleration. The presence of ray tracing cores also gives it a unique capability for modern rendering effects, though the data does not provide a direct benchmark for this feature. The Arc A310’s low 30 W TDP and single-slot design make it vastly more power-efficient, consuming 75% less power than the GTX 880M’s 122 W. This could be a deciding factor for compact or thermally constrained systems.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M, despite its age, still holds advantages in specific areas. Its average benchmark score of 8,040 is higher than the Arc A310’s 7,550, suggesting it performs better in the aggregate of tests that contribute to that metric. The 8 GB of VRAM is double the Arc A310’s 4 GB, which could be a significant boon for texture-heavy workloads or higher-resolution framebuffers that exceed the Intel card’s memory capacity. The wider 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s, gives the GTX 880M a 29% bandwidth advantage, which may help in scenarios where memory throughput is the bottleneck rather than raw compute. Its higher FP32 throughput of 3.050 TFLOPS versus 2.688 TFLOPS also means it is faster in pure single-precision floating-point operations, a metric that still matters for many legacy games and scientific applications.

The Passmark results for the Arc A310 suggest a specific weakness in older DirectX APIs. Its scores of 31 in DirectX 10, 33 in DirectX 11, and 29 in DirectX 12 are all extremely low, while its DirectX 9 score of 69 is relatively higher. This pattern implies that the Intel card’s driver overhead or hardware design does not favor these legacy rasterization paths, potentially making it a poor choice for older game titles that rely on DirectX 10 or 11. The GTX 880M, being a product of that era, would likely excel in these same scenarios, though no direct comparison is available in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M has an average benchmark score of 8,040, which is higher than the Intel Arc A310’s average of 7,550.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A310 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A310 scores 30,607 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 880M scores 5,622. This represents a deltaPct of -81.6% from the NVIDIA card’s perspective, meaning the Intel card is significantly faster.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types of these two GPUs?

A: The GTX 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A310 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A310 includes 6 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA GTX 880M has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two cards?

A: The GTX 880M has a TDP of 122 W, while the Intel Arc A310 has a TDP of 30 W, making the Intel card significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The GTX 880M has an FP32 rating of 3.050 TFLOPS, which is higher than the Arc A310’s 2.688 TFLOPS.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the Intel Arc A310 is the superior choice for modern compute-intensive workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 30,607 dwarfs the GTX 880M’s 5,622, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 makes it compatible with contemporary graphics APIs. The addition of ray tracing cores, even without specific benchmark data, positions it as the only one of the two capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing. Its 30 W TDP is a fraction of the GTX 880M’s 122 W, making it a far more practical option for energy-conscious builds. For any user prioritizing raw compute performance, modern feature support, or efficiency, the Arc A310 is the clear winner.

However, the GTX 880M is not without merit. Its higher average benchmark score of 8,040 versus 7,550 suggests that it may perform more consistently across a broader range of tests, particularly legacy ones. The 8 GB of VRAM and wider 256-bit bus give it double the memory capacity and 29% more bandwidth than the Arc A310, which could be advantageous for specific applications that require large textures or high memory throughput. Its higher FP32 throughput of 3.050 TFLOPS also means it outpaces the Intel card in pure single-precision math. For users running older software that relies on DirectX 11 or earlier, or for those who need more VRAM, the GTX 880M could still be the better option, despite its age and higher power draw.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specifications where the two GPUs differ:

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M | Intel Arc A310 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Kepler | Xe-HPG |

| Chip | GK104 | DG2-128 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 954 MHz | 1750 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 993 MHz | 1750 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) |

| Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 124.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 768 |

| TMUs | 128 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 31.78 GPixel/s | 28.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 127.1 GTexel/s | 56.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.050 TFLOPS | 2.688 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 122 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 200 W |