Intel Arc A310E vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records no head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc A310E versus the Intel Arc A380M. Both parts occupy the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, and neither has an average benchmark score above zero. The absence of recorded measurements means no direct performance comparison can be drawn from the database for these two Alchemist-generation parts. What the database does contain is a full set of architectural specifications, and those specifications reveal a substantial gap in raw compute capacity, memory resources, and throughput rates.

The Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Arc A380M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That difference puts the A380M roughly 33 percent ahead of the A310E in pure shading throughput. The gap widens in FP16, where the A310E reaches 6.144 TFLOPS and the A380M reaches 8.192 TFLOPS, both using a 2:1 ratio. Texture fill rate tells a similar story: the A310E sustains 64.00 GTexel/s while the A380M sustains 128.0 GTexel/s, exactly double. Pixel fill rate also doubles, from 32.00 GPixel/s on the A310E to 64.00 GPixel/s on the A380M. These are not marginal differences; the A380M has double the texture throughput and double the pixel throughput in the recorded data.

Memory bandwidth favors the A380M by a wide margin. The A310E uses a 64-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR6 and reaches 124.0 GB/s. The A380M expands to a 96-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR6 and reaches 186.0 GB/s. That is 50 percent more bandwidth and 50 percent more memory capacity. The effective memory clock is identical at 1937 MHz, or 15.5 Gbps effective, so the bandwidth advantage comes entirely from the wider bus.

Clock behavior differs between the two. The A310E runs a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, meaning the card operates at a fixed frequency with no boost headroom recorded. The A380M starts lower at 1550 MHz base but boosts to the same 2000 MHz ceiling. In sustained workloads that hold boost clocks, the A380M can match the A310E's frequency while carrying more shaders, more texture units, more render output units, and more ray tracing cores.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Xe-HPG architecture and belong to the Alchemist generation, with the A310E listed under Arc 3 and the A380M under Arc 3 Mobile. Both use the DG2-128 chip, fabricated at TSMC on a 6 nm process. The die is identical in both parts: 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The foundational silicon is the same, so all differences come from how Intel configures the chip and how the two products are packaged.

The shader configuration separates the two clearly. The A310E enables 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 6 ray tracing cores. The A380M enables 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The A380M carries one third more shading units, double the TMUs, double the ROPs, and two additional ray tracing cores. That configuration explains the measured throughput differences: the FP32 rate scales from 3.072 TFLOPS to 4.096 TFLOPS, a ratio of 1.33, matching the shader count ratio exactly. The texture rate doubles from 64.00 to 128.0 GTexel/s, matching the TMU ratio. The pixel rate doubles from 32.00 to 64.00 GPixel/s, matching the ROP ratio.

Memory architecture is another clear divergence. The A310E uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6. The A380M uses a 96-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR6. The memory clock is the same, so the bandwidth scales with bus width: 124.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s. The A380M has 50 percent more capacity and 50 percent more bandwidth, which matters for workloads that exceed 4 GB of working set or saturate the narrower bus.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The A310E carries a 75 W TDP, is a single-slot card, uses no power connectors, and draws power solely from the PCIe slot. Its suggested power supply is 250 W. The A380M is an MXM module with a 35 W TDP, no suggested PSU listed, and no recorded power connector. The mobile module consumes less than half the power of the desktop card while delivering more compute throughput, which indicates a significantly higher performance per watt profile in the recorded specifications.

The bus interface also differs. The A310E connects via PCIe 4.0 x8. The A380M uses MXM-A (3.1), a module standard for laptops and portable devices. Display outputs follow the same pattern: the A310E provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors, while the A380M lists "Portable Device Dependent", meaning its display configuration is determined by the host laptop rather than the module itself.

Both parts share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither lists tensor cores in the database. Both use GDDR6 memory. Both are built on the same architecture, same process node, same foundry, and same chip. The differences are in enabled execution resources, memory bus width, power envelope, and form factor.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A380M wins every compute and memory comparison in the recorded data. It has more shading units, more texture units, more ROPs, more ray tracing cores, more memory, wider memory bus, higher bandwidth, higher FP32 throughput, higher FP16 throughput, higher texture rate, and higher pixel rate. The only clock specification where it trails is the base clock, which runs at 1550 MHz versus the A310E's 2000 MHz, but both parts boost to 2000 MHz and the A380M's advantage in execution resources dwarfs that base clock deficit.

The Arc A310E wins in areas that matter for deployment rather than raw speed. It is a desktop card with a standard PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, fixed dimensions of 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width, and four dedicated mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. It is self-contained and can be installed in a desktop chassis with a 250 W power supply. The A380M has no recorded dimensions, no fixed display outputs, and depends on a host laptop or portable device for its display connections. For a system builder needing a drop-in desktop GPU with known output configuration, the A310E is the only one of the two that offers that path.

The A310E also holds a higher base clock at 2000 MHz, which can benefit workloads that are latency-sensitive or that operate at fixed frequencies without relying on boost behavior. Its 75 W TDP is higher than the A380M's 35 W, but it requires no auxiliary power connector, which simplifies installation in systems that only provide slot power.

The A380M is the stronger part for compute-bound tasks. Its 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 give it a clear edge for general compute, machine learning inference, and graphics workloads that scale with shader count. The doubled texture rate and doubled pixel rate suggest it handles fill-rate-heavy rendering better than the A310E. The 6 GB memory capacity and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth give it more headroom for larger textures, larger buffers, and workloads that exceed the A310E's 4 GB allocation.

The production status differs as well. The A310E is listed as end-of-life, while the A380M is listed as active. The A310E has a release date of 2024-03-31, while the A380M released earlier on 2023-01-23. The A310E lists a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage, while the A380M lists neither. The database indicates the A310E is a finished product cycle, while the A380M remains in production.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Arc A380M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32, which is 33 percent higher than the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same chip and process node?

A: Yes. Both use the DG2-128 chip on TSMC's 6 nm process, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die.

Q: What is the memory difference between the two?

A: The A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The Arc A380M has a 35 W TDP, while the Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP. The A380M consumes less than half the power while providing higher compute throughput.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with DirectX 12 Ultimate?

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

Q: What form factor does each GPU use?

A: The A310E is a single-slot desktop card with PCIe 4.0 x8 and 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The A380M is an MXM module using MXM-A (3.1) with display outputs dependent on the host device.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Arc A380M as the stronger GPU in every raw performance metric. It has 1024 shading units versus 768, 64 TMUs versus 32, 32 ROPs versus 16, 8 ray tracing cores versus 6, 6 GB memory versus 4 GB, 186.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 124.0 GB/s, 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.072 TFLOPS, 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 versus 6.144 TFLOPS, 128.0 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, and 64.00 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s. It does all of this at a 35 W TDP, less than half the A310E's 75 W TDP. The A380M is the clear choice for any workload that stresses compute, memory bandwidth, or fill rate.

The Arc A310E has a narrower role. It is a desktop card with fixed dimensions, fixed display outputs, and standard PCIe integration. Its 2000 MHz base clock matches its boost clock, which can be useful for deterministic frequency behavior. Its end-of-life status and lower compute ceiling limit its appeal, but for a system that requires a slot-powered, single-slot desktop GPU with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, the A310E is the part that fits that requirement.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310E | Intel Arc A380M |

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

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 1550 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 96 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 186.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 32 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.00 GPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 64.00 GTexel/s | 128.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.072 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.1) |

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

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm | Not recorded |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-03-31 | 2023-01-23 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Not recorded |

| Successor | Battlemage | Not recorded |