Intel Arc A310E vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core specifications of the Intel Arc A310E and Intel Arc A380E?

A: Both cards use the same DG2-128 chip, Xe-HPG architecture, and 6 nm TSMC process. The A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 ray tracing cores, and 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. The A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 8 ray tracing cores, and 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus.

Q: Do these two cards have the same clock speeds?

A: Yes. Both have a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The memory clock is also identical at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective speed.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two?

A: The A310E provides 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the A380E provides 186.0 GB/s. The A380E has a wider 96-bit memory bus compared to the 64-bit bus on the A310E.

Q: How do the compute rates compare?

A: The A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 6.144 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. The A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS of FP16. The A380E is roughly 33% higher in both metrics.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: The A310E measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The A380E measures 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. Both are single-slot designs.

Q: What display outputs do they support?

A: The A310E has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The A380E has four standard DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture. The chip is DG2-128, built on the Xe-HPG architecture, and manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is 7,200 million, and the die size is 157 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². Both belong to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation and share the same predecessor, Xe Graphics, and successor, Battlemage.

The architectural difference lies in the configuration of the execution resources. The A310E activates fewer of the available units on the DG2-128 die. It has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The A380E enables a fuller configuration with 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This difference directly impacts pixel fill rate and texture fill rate. The A310E achieves 32.00 GPixel/s and 64.00 GTexel/s, while the A380E doubles both to 64.00 GPixel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s.

Ray tracing hardware also differs. The A310E includes 6 ray tracing cores, while the A380E includes 8. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card includes dedicated tensor cores in the recorded data.

Memory architecture is another key divergence. The A310E uses a 64-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR6, while the A380E uses a 96-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR6. Despite the same memory clock of 1937 MHz, the wider bus on the A380E yields significantly higher bandwidth. Both cards have a TDP of 75 W, require no power connectors, and suggest a 250 W power supply. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

The physical design differs substantially. The A310E is a compact card at 168 mm length and 69 mm height. The A380E is much larger at 254 mm length and 127 mm height. Both are 20 mm wide and single-slot. The display outputs also differ: the A310E uses four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors, while the A380E uses four full-size DisplayPort 2.0 connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not include direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two cards. However, the recorded specification data allows for a clear comparison of their theoretical performance ceilings.

The most significant advantage for the A380E is in shading throughput. With 1024 shading units versus 768 on the A310E, the A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 33% higher than the 3.072 TFLOPS of the A310E. This translates directly to faster shader-bound workloads in graphics rendering.

The texture and pixel throughput gap is even larger. The A380E achieves 128.0 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, exactly double the 64.00 GTexel/s of the A310E. Similarly, the pixel rate doubles from 32.00 GPixel/s to 64.00 GPixel/s. These figures indicate the A380E has twice the raw rasterization throughput of the A310E, which matters for resolution scaling and multi-sample anti-aliasing.

Memory bandwidth favors the A380E by a wide margin. The 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth on the A380E is 50% higher than the 124.0 GB/s on the A310E. This is directly attributable to the 96-bit bus on the A380E versus the 64-bit bus on the A310E. The larger memory capacity of 6 GB versus 4 GB also gives the A380E more headroom for texture-heavy workloads and larger datasets.

The ray tracing difference is smaller but still present. The A380E has 8 ray tracing cores compared to 6 on the A310E, a 33% increase. This suggests proportionally better ray tracing performance, though the actual impact depends on the specific workload.

There is no scenario where the A310E outperforms the A380E based on the recorded data. Every compute, memory, and throughput metric favors the A380E. The only area where the two are equal is clock speed, TDP, and power connector requirements. The A310E does hold an advantage in physical footprint, being significantly shorter and lower-profile than the A380E.

The Verdict

The data clearly distinguishes these two cards. The Intel Arc A380E is the superior performer in every measurable specification. It offers 33% more shading units, double the texture and pixel fill rates, 50% more memory bandwidth, and 50% more memory capacity. The ray tracing core count is also higher at 8 versus 6.

The Intel Arc A310E is the more compact option. Its 168 mm length and 69 mm height make it suitable for space-constrained systems. The A380E requires more physical space at 254 mm length and 127 mm height, which may not fit in all small-form-factor chassis.

Both cards share the same TDP of 75 W, require no external power connectors, and suggest the same 250 W power supply. This means the A380E delivers substantially higher performance within the same power envelope. The efficiency advantage is clear: the A380E provides 4.096 TFLOPS at 75 W, while the A310E provides 3.072 TFLOPS at the same power draw.

For buyers prioritizing raw performance, the A380E is the only choice based on the recorded data. For buyers prioritizing physical size and minimal footprint, the A310E is the viable option, but the performance trade-off is significant.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Shading Units: 768 (A310E) vs 1024 (A380E)
• TMUs: 32 vs 64
• ROPs: 16 vs 32
• Ray Tracing Cores: 6 vs 8
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 6 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs 96 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 124.0 GB/s vs 186.0 GB/s
• Pixel Rate: 32.00 GPixel/s vs 64.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 64.00 GTexel/s vs 128.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 3.072 TFLOPS vs 4.096 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 6.144 TFLOPS vs 8.192 TFLOPS
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 vs 4x DisplayPort 2.0
• Dimensions: 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm vs 254 mm x 127 mm x 20 mm

The identical fields include the chip (DG2-128), architecture (Xe-HPG), generation (Alchemist Arc 3), process node (6 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (7,200 million), die size (157 mm²), transistor density (45.9M per mm²), base and boost clocks (2000 MHz), memory clock (1937 MHz), TDP (75 W), slot width (single-slot), power connectors (none), suggested PSU (250 W), bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x8), API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), production status (end-of-life), release date, predecessor, and successor.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Arc A310E wins in these scenarios:

The compact form factor is the primary advantage. At 168 mm length and 69 mm height, it fits in chassis that cannot accommodate the 254 mm length and 127 mm height of the A380E. The mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs may also suit specific cabling setups or dense multi-card configurations where standard connectors would be too bulky.

Intel Arc A380E wins in these scenarios:

The A380E dominates in performance-oriented workloads. The 6 GB memory capacity and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth handle larger textures and higher-resolution assets without swapping. The double pixel rate and texture rate make it substantially faster for rasterization-heavy rendering. The 33% higher FP32 throughput benefits general compute and shader-heavy effects. The additional ray tracing cores provide better performance in ray-traced scenes.

For any workload where performance matters more than physical size, the A380E is clearly superior. The A310E only makes sense when the physical footprint is the limiting constraint, and even then, the performance penalty is substantial. The data shows no benchmark scenario where the A310E would outperform the A380E given the identical clock speeds and lower resource counts on the A310E.