Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q Comparison

The Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q are both DirectX 12 Ultimate class GPUs in the database, but they are otherwise far apart. The recorded data shows no benchmark entries for either model, so this analysis uses the complete specification records and the shared database rank of 50 for both GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Because the benchmark tables are empty, the largest head-to-head wins are specification wins. The RTX 4090 Max-Q leads in shading units, 9728 versus 768, and in texture units, 304 versus 32. It leads in ROPs, 112 versus 16, and in ray tracing cores, 76 versus 6. It also has 304 tensor cores while the Arc A310E has no tensor core count recorded. Memory favors the NVIDIA part: 16 GB versus 4 GB, 256 bit versus 64 bit, and 576.0 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s. Compute throughput favors the NVIDIA part: 28.31 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.072 TFLOPS, and 28.31 TFLOPS FP16 versus 6.144 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 163.0 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 442.3 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s.

The Arc A310E has its own clear wins. Its base and boost clocks are both 2000 MHz, while the RTX 4090 Max-Q runs at 930 MHz base and 1455 MHz boost. The Intel part draws 75 W versus 80 W, uses a smaller die at 157 mm² versus 379 mm², and is a single-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs. The Arc also has listed dimensions of 168 mm 6.6 inches, 69 mm 2.7 inches, and 20 mm 0.8 inches, while the NVIDIA part has no listed dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectures and generations. The Arc A310E uses Intel's Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-128 chip from the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The RTX 4090 Max-Q uses NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD103 chip from the GeForce 40 Mobile generation. Intel uses TSMC 6 nm, while NVIDIA uses TSMC 5 nm. The NVIDIA die is larger and denser: 379 mm² and 121.1M / mm² against 157 mm² and 45.9M / mm². Transistor count is 45,900 million versus 7,200 million.

The compute blocks differ sharply. The NVIDIA part has 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 76 RT cores, and 304 tensor cores. The Intel part has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and no tensor core count recorded. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. FP16 behavior differs: the Arc A310E reaches 6.144 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX 4090 Max-Q reaches 28.31 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. Memory is GDDR6 on both, but the NVIDIA part uses 16 GB on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s, while the Intel part uses 4 GB on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel, PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA. The Intel card is single-slot with 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0; the NVIDIA part is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the RTX 4090 Max-Q is the high-performance part. It wins every recorded compute and memory category, and it has far more ray tracing and tensor hardware. The Arc A310E is the low-power, compact, display-oriented part. It has a higher clock, lower TDP, smaller die, single-slot format, and four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. Systems that need 28.31 TFLOPS FP32, 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, or 76 RT cores should choose the NVIDIA part. Systems limited to 75 W, a single slot, and direct multi-display output should choose the Intel part. The production statuses reinforce the split: the Arc A310E is End-of-life, while the RTX 4090 Max-Q is Active.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc A310E boosts at 2000 MHz. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q boosts at 1455 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q has 576.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus. The Arc A310E has 124.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: How do the FP32 throughput figures compare?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q is rated at 28.31 TFLOPS. The Arc A310E is rated at 3.072 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q has 304 tensor cores. The Arc A310E has no tensor core count recorded.

Q: What are the production statuses?

A: The Arc A310E is End-of-life. The RTX 4090 Max-Q is Active.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4090 Max-Q wins in every throughput-related specification. It has 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 76 RT cores, and 304 tensor cores. It has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput are both 28.31 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate is 163.0 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 442.3 GTexel/s. It also uses PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Arc A310E wins in clock speed, power draw, physical size, and display connectivity. Its 2000 MHz base and boost clocks exceed the 930 MHz and 1455 MHz clocks of the NVIDIA part. Its 75 W TDP is below the 80 W TDP. Its die is 157 mm², smaller than 379 mm². It is a single-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the NVIDIA part is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs. The Arc also has listed dimensions, while the NVIDIA part has none. For compute-heavy workloads, the NVIDIA part is the clear choice. For power-constrained or multi-display systems, the Intel part has the recorded advantages.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the recorded values differ.

| Field | Intel Arc A310E | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | NVIDIA |

| Series | Not specified | GeForce 40-series |

| Chip | DG2-128 | AD103 |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ada Lovelace |

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

| Process node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 45,900 million |

| Die size | 157 mm² | 379 mm² |

| Transistor density | 45.9M / mm² | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 2000 MHz | 930 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2000 MHz | 1455 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 16 GB |

| Bus width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 768 | 9728 |

| TMUs | 32 | 304 |

| ROPs | 16 | 112 |

| RT cores | 6 | 76 |

| Tensor cores | No tensor core count recorded | 304 |

| Pixel rate | 32.00 GPixel/s | 163.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 64.00 GTexel/s | 442.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.072 TFLOPS | 28.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) | 28.31 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 80 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None listed |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

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

| Dimensions | 168 mm 6.6 inches, 69 mm 2.7 inches, 20 mm 0.8 inches | None listed |

| 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 |