Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA B300 Comparison

Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA B300 occupy entirely different segments of the GPU market, and the recorded data confirms they share almost nothing in common beyond being accelerators. The A310E is a compact, low-power graphics card built for embedded and entry-level desktop use, while the B300 is a massive server accelerator designed for high-performance computing and AI workloads. The benchmark database shows both cards at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, but their physical and architectural specifications diverge so sharply that any direct comparison must be framed by their intended roles.

FAQ

Q: What is the memory capacity of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e memory.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The A310E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the B300 has a TDP of 1400 W and a suggested PSU of 1800 W.

Q: What process nodes are used for each chip?

A: The A310E uses a 6 nm process at TSMC with 7,200 million transistors, while the B300 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC with 104,000 million transistors.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: The A310E includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the B300 does not list any ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: What is the bus interface for each card?

A: The A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8, and the B300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Q: Are both products still in production?

A: The A310E is marked as end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, while the B300 is active, released on 2025-09-10.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Arc A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The NVIDIA B300 uses the Blackwell Ultra architecture with the GB110 chip, part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but the A310E uses a 6 nm process while the B300 uses a 5 nm process. This process difference alone contributes to the massive disparity in transistor counts: the A310E packs 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The B300 has 104,000 million transistors, with no die size recorded in the database, making density calculations impossible from the available data.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The A310E has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The B300 also includes 592 tensor cores, while the A310E has no tensor core count listed. For ray tracing, the A310E has 6 RT cores, but the B300 does not specify any RT core count. The memory subsystem follows the same pattern: the A310E uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6 and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the B300 uses a 4096-bit bus with 144 GB of HBM3e and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth.

Clock behavior also differs. The A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost clocks, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The B300 has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost clock of 2032 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The A310E is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 168 mm length, while the B300 is an SXM module with no display outputs and no recorded dimensions. The A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B300 lists no API support in the database, consistent with its server-oriented role.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two GPUs, and both have an average benchmark score of 0 with zero recorded wins each. This absence of measured data reflects their completely different market positions. The A310E is an end-of-life embedded graphics card, while the B300 is an active server accelerator. Without shared benchmark workloads, the recorded data cannot produce comparative performance numbers. However, the architectural specifications provide a basis for evaluating their relative capabilities in different domains.

The FP32 compute throughput illustrates the gap: the A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS, while the B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS. That is a 25-fold difference in raw single-precision performance, derived directly from the recorded figures. For FP16, the A310E offers 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the B300 offers 1,231.8 TFLOPS with a 16:1 ratio. The B300’s FP16 capability exceeds the A310E’s by a factor of over 200, reflecting its tensor-core-heavy design for AI workloads. Pixel and texture rates follow the same trend: the A310E has 32.00 GPixel/s and 64.00 GTexel/s, while the B300 has 48.77 GPixel/s and 1,202.9 GTexel/s. The texture rate difference is particularly stark, with the B300 delivering nearly 19 times the texel throughput.

Memory bandwidth is another chasm. The A310E’s 124.0 GB/s is dwarfed by the B300’s 4.10 TB/s, a 33-fold advantage. This bandwidth difference is critical for large-scale data processing, where the B300 can move far more data per second. The B300 also has 36 times the memory capacity (144 GB versus 4 GB), which enables it to hold entire datasets or model weights in local memory. The A310E’s 64-bit memory bus limits its bandwidth ceiling, while the B300’s 4096-bit bus is designed for maximum throughput in server environments.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA B300 are not competitors. The A310E is a low-power, single-slot graphics card with a 75 W TDP, designed for embedded systems or basic display output, with 4 GB of memory and a 64-bit bus. The B300 is a 1400 W server module with 144 GB of HBM3e, 592 tensor cores, and a 4096-bit bus, intended for data center compute and AI acceleration. The B300 outperforms the A310E in every measured compute metric: FP32, FP16, texture rate, pixel rate, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity. Conversely, the A310E has a lower power draw, a smaller physical footprint, and supports display outputs (4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0), which the B300 lacks entirely.

For users needing a compact card for light graphics work or multi-display setups, the A310E fits that role. For users requiring massive parallel compute, high-bandwidth memory, or tensor operations, the B300 is the only viable option between these two. The percentile ranking of 50 for both GPUs is misleading, as it reflects the aggregate database distribution rather than any shared workload. The B300’s active production status and 2025 release date contrast with the A310E’s end-of-life status and 2024 release, further separating their lifecycles.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs, based solely on the recorded data:

• Architecture: Xe-HPG (Intel) versus Blackwell Ultra (NVIDIA)
• Chip: DG2-128 versus GB110
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 3) versus Server Blackwell (Bxx)
• Process node: 6 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: 7,200 million versus 104,000 million
• Die size: 157 mm² versus not recorded
• Transistor density: 45.9M / mm² versus not recorded
• Base clock: 2000 MHz versus 1665 MHz
• Boost clock: 2000 MHz versus 2032 MHz
• Memory clock: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 144 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM3e
• Memory bus: 64 bit versus 4096 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 124.0 GB/s versus 4.10 TB/s
• Shading units: 768 versus 18,944
• TMUs: 32 versus 592
• ROPs: 16 versus 24
• RT cores: 6 versus not recorded
• Tensor cores: not recorded versus 592
• Pixel rate: 32.00 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 64.00 GTexel/s versus 1,202.9 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.072 TFLOPS versus 76.99 TFLOPS
• FP16: 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1)
• TDP: 75 W versus 1400 W
• Slot width: Single-slot versus SXM Module
• Power connectors: None versus not recorded
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 1800 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus No outputs
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus not recorded
• OpenGL support: 4.6 versus not recorded
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus not recorded
• Dimensions: 168 mm length, 69 mm height, 20 mm width versus not recorded
• Production status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release date: 2024-03-31 versus 2025-09-10
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics versus Server Hopper
• Successor: Battlemage versus Server Rubin

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310E wins in areas tied to its compact and low-power design. Its 75 W TDP requires no power connectors and a modest 250 W suggested PSU, making it suitable for small form factor systems. Its single-slot profile and 168 mm length fit into tight chassis, and its 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs provide multi-monitor capability. The A310E also has a higher base clock (2000 MHz versus 1665 MHz) and a smaller die (157 mm² versus none recorded), which may translate to lower manufacturing complexity for its intended segment. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 gives it a full graphics API stack, unlike the B300 which lists none.

The NVIDIA B300 wins decisively in all raw performance categories. Its FP32 throughput of 76.99 TFLOPS is over 25 times that of the A310E, and its FP16 throughput of 1,231.8 TFLOPS is over 200 times higher. The B300’s 4.10 TB/s memory bandwidth is 33 times greater, and its 144 GB capacity is 36 times larger. The B300 has 592 tensor cores for AI acceleration, while the A310E has none recorded. The B300’s texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s is nearly 19 times the A310E’s 64.00 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 48.77 GPixel/s exceeds the A310E’s 32.00 GPixel/s by over 50 percent. The B300 also uses a wider PCIe 5.0 x16 interface versus the A310E’s PCIe 4.0 x8, and its 5 nm process node is more advanced than the 6 nm node of the A310E. For server workloads involving large datasets, high-bandwidth memory access, or tensor operations, the B300 is the clear choice. For embedded or desktop applications requiring low power, small size, and display output, the A310E holds the advantage.