Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q. Both entries list an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs, with no nearest rivals populated. Consequently, quantitative performance comparisons from actual test runs are unavailable in the dataset. What the data does provide is a comprehensive specification profile for each part, allowing an analytical comparison of their theoretical compute capabilities, memory subsystems, and architectural parameters. The absence of measured scores means any performance assessment must rely on these recorded specifications rather than empirical results.

The most striking numerical disparity appears in floating-point throughput. The RTX 4080 Max-Q records 20.04 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Arc A310E records 3.072 TFLOPS. This represents a factor of approximately 6.5x in favor of the NVIDIA part. Similarly, FP16 throughput shows the RTX 4080 Max-Q at 20.04 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Arc A310E delivers 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The texture fill rate tells a comparable story: 313.2 GTexel/s for the RTX 4080 Max-Q versus 64.00 GTexel/s for the Arc A310E, a gap of roughly 4.9x. Pixel fill rates differ by a smaller margin, with 108.0 GPixel/s against 32.00 GPixel/s, a 3.4x difference. These figures indicate that in raw shading, texturing, and rasterization throughput, the NVIDIA part dominates by a wide margin across every recorded compute metric.

Memory bandwidth presents another decisive separation. The RTX 4080 Max-Q uses a 192-bit bus with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, delivering 432.0 GB/s. The Arc A310E operates with a 64-bit bus and 4 GB of GDDR6, achieving 124.0 GB/s. The bandwidth ratio stands at approximately 3.5x in favor of NVIDIA. Memory clock rates also differ: the RTX 4080 Max-Q runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the Arc A310E runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective. The larger bus width, not the clock speed alone, drives the bandwidth advantage.

Clock speeds show an unusual inversion. The Arc A310E records a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, indicating a fixed operating frequency. The RTX 4080 Max-Q records a base clock of just 795 MHz with a boost of 1350 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the NVIDIA part achieves far higher throughput due to its vastly larger execution resource count: 7424 shading units versus 768, 232 TMUs versus 32, 80 ROPs versus 16, 58 RT cores versus 6, and 232 tensor cores versus none recorded for the Arc. The architectural efficiency of Ada Lovelace combined with the sheer scale of execution units explains why lower clock speeds still yield superior performance.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and market positions. The Intel Arc A310E belongs to the Alchemist generation, specifically the Arc 3 tier, built on the Xe-HPG architecture. It uses the DG2-128 chip fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 157 mm² and contains 7,200 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q comes from the GeForce 40-series mobile lineup, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture. It uses the AD104 chip on a 5 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 294 mm² and 35,800 million transistors, resulting in a density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The transistor density difference of roughly 2.65x reflects the more advanced process node and denser design rules.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude in most categories. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The RTX 4080 Max-Q has 7424 shading units, 232 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware shows 6 RT cores for the Intel part versus 58 for the NVIDIA part. Tensor cores appear only on the NVIDIA GPU, with 232 units recorded; the Intel entry leaves this field empty, indicating no equivalent tensor processing hardware in the specification. This absence affects workloads that rely on tensor operations, such as certain AI-accelerated rendering features.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit interface, producing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4080 Max-Q uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit interface, producing 432.0 GB/s. The memory clock also differs: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for Intel versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. The larger capacity and wider bus of the RTX part support higher-resolution textures and larger working sets, while the Arc part targets lower memory footprints.

Power and physical characteristics set the parts apart further. The Arc A310E carries a TDP of 75 W, uses a single-slot form factor, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. It measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The RTX 4080 Max-Q records a TDP of 60 W, interestingly lower than the Intel part despite far higher performance, and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) for portable devices. No dimensions are recorded for the NVIDIA part, and display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it is designed for integration into laptops rather than discrete add-in cards. The Arc A310E provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, suggesting a desktop or workstation deployment. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA, doubling the available host bandwidth for the RTX part.

Both GPUs support identical API levels: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status differs, with the Arc A310E marked as end-of-life and the RTX 4080 Max-Q marked as active. Release dates show the NVIDIA part launched on 2023-01-02, while the Intel part arrived on 2024-03-31. The Intel predecessor is Xe Graphics, with a successor of Battlemage. The NVIDIA predecessor is GeForce 30 Mobile, with a successor of GeForce 50 Mobile.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 4080 Max-Q records 20.04 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, versus 3.072 TFLOPS for the Arc A310E. The NVIDIA part delivers approximately 6.5 times the single-precision throughput.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4080 Max-Q has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: What is the process node and die size for each chip?

A: The Arc A310E uses a 6 nm TSMC process with a 157 mm² die. The RTX 4080 Max-Q uses a 5 nm TSMC process with a 294 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX 4080 Max-Q has 58 RT cores, while the Arc A310E has 6 RT cores.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The Arc A310E records a TDP of 75 W. The RTX 4080 Max-Q records a TDP of 60 W, despite having substantially higher compute resources.

# The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The RTX 4080 Max-Q outperforms the Arc A310E across every recorded compute metric: FP32 throughput (20.04 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS), FP16 throughput (20.04 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS), texture rate (313.2 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s), pixel rate (108.0 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s), memory bandwidth (432.0 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s), and memory capacity (12 GB versus 4 GB). The NVIDIA part also carries 7424 shading units, 232 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 58 RT cores, and 232 tensor cores, compared to 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores for the Intel part. The only areas where the Arc A310E shows advantages are physical dimensions, with a compact 168 mm length and single-slot form factor, and a higher base clock of 2000 MHz versus 795 MHz. The TDP of 75 W for the Arc exceeds the 60 W of the RTX, so the Intel part does not win on power efficiency either.

The RTX 4080 Max-Q is suitable for workloads demanding high compute throughput, large memory capacity, and advanced features like tensor cores. The Arc A310E, with its lower specifications and end-of-life status, appears geared toward lightweight or legacy applications where its smaller footprint and lower bandwidth suffice. The recorded percentile rankings of 50 for both parts suggest they sit at the median of the GPU database, but with no benchmark scores to anchor those rankings, the specification comparison must carry the analysis. The NVIDIA part, despite being released earlier, remains active in production, while the Intel part has reached end-of-life. Users seeking maximum performance from the recorded data should select the RTX 4080 Max-Q. Users constrained by physical space or needing a discrete card with mini-DisplayPort outputs might consider the Arc A310E, though its compute and memory limitations are substantial.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310E | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | GeForce 40 Mobile |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 1350 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 7424 |

| TMUs | 32 | 232 |

| ROPs | 16 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 6 | 58 |

| Tensor Cores | None recorded | 232 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.00 GPixel/s | 108.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 64.00 GTexel/s | 313.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.072 TFLOPS | 20.04 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) | 20.04 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 60 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| 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 | 2023-01-02 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | GeForce 30 Mobile |

| Successor | Battlemage | GeForce 50 Mobile |

The specification table confirms the functional divide between these two GPUs. The RTX 4080 Max-Q carries a larger, denser chip with more than double the die area and nearly five times the transistor count. Clock speeds favor the Intel part, but the NVIDIA architecture compensates with a far larger execution resource pool. Memory capacity and bandwidth favor NVIDIA by 3x and 3.5x respectively. The RTX part also adds tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely. Power consumption runs counter to performance expectations, with the less powerful Arc requiring 75 W versus 60 W for the RTX. The physical form factors also differ completely: the Arc is a discrete single-slot card with fixed dimensions and mini-DisplayPort outputs, while the RTX is an integrated graphics processor for portable devices with no recorded dimensions and device-dependent outputs. These differences align with distinct target applications, but the performance gap recorded in the specifications leaves no ambiguity about which part delivers higher throughput.