Intel Arc A310E vs Intel Arc A380E x2 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc A310E versus the Intel Arc A380E x2. Both cards share the same DG2-128 chip, the Xe-HPG architecture, and the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, but the recorded specifications show a clear performance hierarchy based on resource allocation and memory configuration.

The Arc A310E ships with 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Arc A380E x2 doubles the TMUs to 64 and the ROPs to 32, while increasing shading units to 1024. This translates directly into rated throughput figures. The A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the A380E x2 reaches 4.096 TFLOPS. That is a 33.3% higher FP32 peak for the A380E x2, a substantial margin for any workload that scales with raw shader throughput.

Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern. The A310E is rated at 64.00 GTexel/s and 32.00 GPixel/s. The A380E x2 doubles both to 128.0 GTexel/s and 64.00 GPixel/s. The doubling of TMUs and ROPs is the direct cause: the A380E x2 has exactly twice the texture units and twice the raster units of the A310E. For fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution rendering with heavy alpha blending or multi-sample anti-aliasing, the A380E x2 holds a decisive 2x advantage.

Ray tracing hardware also differs. The A310E includes 6 RT cores, while the A380E x2 includes 8 RT cores. That is a 33.3% increase in ray tracing units. For ray-traced effects, the A380E x2 has proportionally more dedicated hardware to handle BVH traversal and ray intersection tests, though the actual performance delta will depend on how well the workload utilizes those cores.

Memory configuration is another major divider. The A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A380E x2 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s. That is a 50% increase in memory bandwidth and a 50% increase in capacity. The memory clock is identical at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), so the bandwidth gain comes entirely from the wider bus.

The FP16 figures scale with the FP32 numbers. The A310E is rated at 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), and the A380E x2 is rated at 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The 2:1 ratio means both cards use the same packed math approach, so relative performance in FP16 workloads should mirror the FP32 results.

Power consumption and physical design reflect the performance gap. The A310E has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the A380E x2 has a 130 W TDP and requires one 6-pin connector. The suggested power supply rating is 250 W for the A310E and 300 W for the A380E x2. The A380E x2 is also longer and taller: 265 mm (10.4 inches) versus 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length, and 127 mm (5 inches) versus 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. Both are single-slot cards with identical 20 mm (0.8 inches) width.

Display output capability differs as well. The A310E provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the A380E x2 provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. For multi-display installations, the A380E x2 supports twice as many simultaneous outputs.

Both cards share the same 6 nm process node from TSMC, the same 7,200 million transistor count, and the same 157 mm² die size. Transistor density is identical at 45.9M / mm². Both use PCIe 4.0 x8, support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both were released on the same date and are marked end-of-life.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows no benchmark scores for either card, so the analysis must rely on specification-derived performance characteristics. The Arc A380E x2 is the stronger card by every compute and memory metric. It has 33.3% more shading units, 100% more texture units, 100% more raster units, 33.3% more RT cores, 50% more memory capacity, and 50% more memory bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput is 4.096 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS, a 33.3% advantage. Its pixel rate is exactly 2x the A310E.

The Arc A310E is the more compact and lower-power option. It fits in a 168 mm length, requires no auxiliary power connector, and operates within a 75 W TDP. The A380E x2 needs a 6-pin connector, has a 130 W TDP, and extends to 265 mm in length. For systems with tight physical constraints or limited power delivery, the A310E is the only viable choice from these two.

There are no head-to-head benchmark entries in the database, so neither card has a recorded win count. Both cards occupy the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating they sit at the median of the recorded GPU population. The average benchmark score for both is zero, which reflects the absence of benchmark data rather than actual performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A380E x2 wins in all compute-heavy scenarios based on the specification data. Its 1024 shading units and 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 make it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute, including shader-heavy rendering, FP32 simulation workloads, and any task that scales with ALU count. Its 64 TMUs and 128.0 GTexel/s texture rate give it a 2x advantage in texture-bound rendering. Its 32 ROPs and 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate give it a 2x advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its 8 RT cores provide more headroom for ray-traced effects than the A310E's 6 RT cores.

The A380E x2 also wins in memory-sensitive workloads. The 6 GB capacity allows larger working sets, and the 186.0 GB/s bandwidth (50% higher than the A310E) reduces bottlenecks in data-intensive applications such as large texture atlases, high-resolution framebuffers, or compute kernels with substantial memory traffic. The 96-bit bus is the mechanism behind this advantage.

The A310E wins in deployment flexibility. Its 75 W TDP means it can operate without any power connector, fitting into low-power slots or systems with minimal PSU headroom. Its 168 mm length makes it suitable for small-form-factor chassis. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs are sufficient for standard multi-monitor setups. The A380E x2, by contrast, requires a 6-pin connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and 265 mm of clearance.

For multi-display density, the A380E x2 wins clearly with 8x mini-DisplayPort outputs versus 4x. For single-GPU systems with modest display needs, the A310E's output count is adequate.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS, which is 33.3% higher than the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS.

Q: Do these cards use the same GPU die?

A: Yes, both use the DG2-128 chip on the 6 nm process from TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors and a 157 mm² die size.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The A310E provides 124.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 4 GB. The A380E x2 provides 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit bus with 6 GB.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The A310E has a 75 W TDP and needs no power connector, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The A380E x2 has a 130 W TDP and needs one 6-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Are there any recorded benchmark scores for these cards?

A: No. The database shows an average benchmark score of zero for both cards, and neither has head-to-head benchmark entries or nearest rivals listed.

Q: Do the cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Xe-HPG architecture and belong to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. They use the identical DG2-128 chip, which is manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The transistor count is the same at 7,200 million, and the die size is the same at 157 mm². Transistor density is identical at 45.9M / mm². The architecture itself does not differ between the two cards; the differences come from how the chip's resources are enabled or configured.

The A310E activates 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. The A380E x2 activates 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. This means the A380E x2 uses a larger portion of the DG2-128 die's available execution resources. The architecture supports the same feature set in both cases: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 are identical on both cards. Neither card has tensor cores listed in the database.

The memory subsystem is a key architectural difference in configuration. The A310E uses a 64-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR6. The A380E x2 uses a 96-bit memory bus with 6 GB of GDDR6. The memory clock is the same at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), so the bandwidth difference (124.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s) comes entirely from the wider bus. The memory type is GDDR6 for both.

Clock speeds are identical: both run at 2000 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost. No game clock is listed for either. The compute rates scale with the resource counts, not the clocks, since the clocks are equal. The FP16 ratio is 2:1 for both, indicating the same packed math implementation.

The A380E x2 also doubles the display output capability with 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus 4x on the A310E. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Both are single-slot cards with a 20 mm width.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Arc A310E and the Intel Arc A380E x2:

• Memory size: 4 GB versus 6 GB
• Memory bus width: 64 bit versus 96 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 124.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 768 versus 1024
• Texture mapping units: 32 versus 64
• Raster output units: 16 versus 32
• Ray tracing cores: 6 versus 8
• Pixel rate: 32.00 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 64.00 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 3.072 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 75 W versus 130 W
• Power connectors: None versus 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 300 W
• Display outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0
• Length: 168 mm (6.6 inches) versus 265 mm (10.4 inches)
• Height: 69 mm (2.7 inches) versus 127 mm (5 inches)

Fields that are identical 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 / mm²), base and boost clocks (2000 MHz), memory clock (1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective), memory type (GDDR6), slot width (single-slot), width (20 mm, 0.8 inches), bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x8), API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), production status (end-of-life), release date, predecessor (Xe Graphics), successor (Battlemage), and the absence of tensor cores. Both cards have a null launch MSRP in the database.