Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB Comparison

# The Verdict

The recorded data positions the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB as the substantially stronger GPU across every measurable dimension. Its average benchmark score of 2329 places it at the 15th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Intel Arc A310E holds a 50th percentile ranking despite having no recorded benchmark scores. The RTX 3050 6 GB delivers 6.774 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, more than double the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. It also provides 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus with 168.0 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the Intel card's 4 GB on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s.

The RTX 3050 6 GB wins decisively in raw throughput metrics. Its 105.8 GTexel/s texture rate far exceeds the Arc A310E's 64.00 GTexel/s, and its 47.04 GPixel/s pixel rate surpasses the Intel part's 32.00 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card also carries 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 18 RT cores, and 72 tensor cores, versus the Intel card's 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. The RTX 3050 6 GB has no tensor core equivalent in the Arc A310E's specification sheet.

The Intel Arc A310E does hold advantages in a few specific areas. It uses a smaller 6 nm TSMC process versus the 8 nm Samsung process of the NVIDIA chip. The Intel card also supports four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the RTX 3050 6 GB offers one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a connections. The Arc A310E's 2000 MHz boost clock is substantially higher than the RTX 3050 6 GB's 1470 MHz boost, though the NVIDIA part compensates with far more execution resources. The Arc A310E also has a smaller physical footprint at 168 mm length and 69 mm height versus the RTX 3050 6 GB's 242 mm length and 112 mm height.

For users requiring the highest frame rates and compute throughput, the data clearly favors the RTX 3050 6 GB. For compact systems where the single-slot, low-profile form factor and DisplayPort 2.0 connectivity matter more than raw performance, the Arc A310E has a defined role. The RTX 3050 6 GB also carries a launch MSRP of 179 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB delivers 6.774 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is more than double the Intel Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB offers 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus with 168.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP and the RTX 3050 6 GB has a 70 W TDP. Both cards use no external power connectors and both suggest a 250 W power supply.

Q: How does the RTX 3050 6 GB compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RTX 3050 6 GB's average benchmark score of 2329 is 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M, 0.4% below the NVIDIA Quadro P620, 1% above the Intel HD Graphics 510, and 1.4% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The Intel Arc A310E provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB provides one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The Arc A310E measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, and is a single-slot card. The RTX 3050 6 GB measures 242 mm in length and 112 mm in height, and is a dual-slot card.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-128 chip, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB uses the Ampere architecture on the GA107 chip, part of the GeForce 30-series. The manufacturing processes differ accordingly: Intel uses a 6 nm TSMC process, while NVIDIA uses an 8 nm Samsung process.

Transistor counts and die sizes reflect the different design philosophies. The Intel chip packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA chip contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5M per mm². The Intel design achieves a higher density on the smaller process node, but the NVIDIA design deploys more transistors overall.

Compute resource allocation diverges sharply. The Arc A310E features 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. The RTX 3050 6 GB features 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 18 RT cores, and 72 tensor cores. The NVIDIA card's tensor core array has no equivalent in the Intel specification, giving it dedicated hardware for AI-accelerated workloads that the Arc A310E lacks.

Clock behavior also differs. The Arc A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost clocks. The RTX 3050 6 GB runs at 1042 MHz base and 1470 MHz boost, a 428 MHz boost delta. Despite the Intel card's higher clock rate, the NVIDIA card's larger resource pool produces far higher aggregate throughput. Memory clocks follow a similar pattern: the Arc A310E runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the RTX 3050 6 GB runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), yet the NVIDIA card achieves higher bandwidth due to its wider 96-bit bus.

The RTX 3050 6 GB supports FP16 at 6.774 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, matching its FP32 throughput. The Arc A310E supports FP16 at 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The RTX 3050 6 GB belongs to the GeForce 30-series, while the Arc A310E belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. Process nodes differ: 6 nm TSMC for Intel versus 8 nm Samsung for NVIDIA. Transistor counts differ: 7,200 million versus 8,700 million. Die sizes differ: 157 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density differs: 45.9M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Arc A310E runs at 2000 MHz base and boost. The RTX 3050 6 GB runs at 1042 MHz base and 1470 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for the Intel card versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA card.

Memory configuration differs in all three relevant fields. The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6, a 64-bit bus, and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3050 6 GB has 6 GB of GDDR6, a 96-bit bus, and 168.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Execution resource counts differ by multiples. Shading units: 768 versus 2304. TMUs: 32 versus 72. ROPs: 16 versus 32. RT cores: 6 versus 18. Tensor cores: none listed versus 72. Pixel rate: 32.00 GPixel/s versus 47.04 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 64.00 GTexel/s versus 105.8 GTexel/s. FP32: 3.072 TFLOPS versus 6.774 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP and is single-slot, while the RTX 3050 6 GB has a 70 W TDP and is dual-slot. Both use no power connectors and both suggest a 250 W power supply. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces. Display outputs differ: four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 for Intel, one HDMI 2.1 plus three DisplayPort 1.4a for NVIDIA. Dimensions differ: 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm for the Arc A310E, versus 242 mm by 112 mm for the RTX 3050 6 GB. Release dates differ: the Arc A310E launched on 2024-03-31, while the RTX 3050 6 GB launched on 2024-02-01. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table contains no recorded entries, so direct comparison relies on the individual specification data and the RTX 3050 6 GB's benchmark suite. The NVIDIA card's recorded scores span multiple DirectX versions. Its highest performance comes in PassMark G3D with a score of 10738, followed by PassMark GPU Compute at 5192, PassMark DirectX 9 at 124, PassMark DirectX 11 at 72, PassMark DirectX 10 at 59, and PassMark DirectX 12 at 53. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1515, and its PassMark G2D score is 882.

The RTX 3050 6 GB's average benchmark score of 2329 places it at the 15th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M with an average score of 2335, the NVIDIA Quadro P620 at 2339, the Intel HD Graphics 510 at 2305, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M at 2363. The RTX 3050 6 GB trails the GT 640M by 0.3%, trails the Quadro P620 by 0.4%, leads the HD Graphics 510 by 1%, and trails the GT 550M by 1.4%.

The Arc A310E has no recorded benchmark scores and no nearest rivals in the database. Its 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs is derived from its specification data rather than measured performance. This makes direct quantitative comparison to the RTX 3050 6 GB impossible from benchmark results alone. However, the specification gap is unambiguous: the RTX 3050 6 GB holds a 2.2x advantage in FP32 compute, a 1.65x advantage in texture rate, a 1.47x advantage in pixel rate, and a 1.35x advantage in memory bandwidth. The NVIDIA card also provides 50% more memory capacity, 3x the shading units, 2.25x the TMUs, 2x the ROPs, and 3x the RT cores.

The Intel card counters with a higher boost clock (2000 MHz versus 1470 MHz), a smaller die (157 mm² versus 200 mm²), a denser transistor layout (45.9M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm²), a newer display interface standard (DisplayPort 2.0 versus DisplayPort 1.4a), and a more compact single-slot form factor. The RTX 3050 6 GB's tensor cores provide dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the Arc A310E lacks entirely.

In the absence of head-to-head benchmark entries, the recorded data indicates that the RTX 3050 6 GB is the stronger performer in every compute and graphics throughput category. The Arc A310E's advantages lie in physical integration and connectivity, not in execution throughput. The 50th percentile ranking of the Arc A310E versus the 15th percentile of the RTX 3050 6 GB reflects the database's overall distribution, but the specification comparison tells the complete performance story.