Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA H100 CNX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA H100 CNX, two accelerators built for entirely different purposes. The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark wins for either part, and both sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs with an average benchmark score of zero. The absence of comparative scores means the analysis must rely on the architectural and specification data to determine where each one delivers its intended advantage.

The Intel Arc A310E wins in the context of compact, low-power visual computing. Its 75 W TDP, single-slot footprint, and 168 mm length make it a fit for small form factor systems. The card uses no power connectors and requires only a 250 W suggested PSU, which places it in a category for constrained builds. It includes four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, meaning it can drive multiple displays directly. The Arc A310E carries the DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) API, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, so it is a functional graphics card for standard rendering workloads. Its 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus delivers 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest but appropriate for its intended class.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX wins in raw compute scale. Its 80 GB HBM2e memory on a 5120-bit bus provides 2.04 TB/s of bandwidth, a figure that dwarfs the Intel part by an order of magnitude. The H100 CNX delivers 53.84 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 215.4 TFLOPS of FP16 throughput with a 4:1 ratio, using 456 tensor cores. It is a dual-slot, 350 W accelerator with an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested PSU of 750 W. This is a server-class part with no display outputs, designed for computation rather than interactive graphics.

The use-case split is clear. The Arc A310E targets low-profile visual output and basic 3D acceleration. The H100 CNX targets high-throughput parallel compute, particularly workloads that benefit from tensor core acceleration and massive memory bandwidth. Neither card is a substitute for the other.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX provides 2.04 TB/s of bandwidth from 80 GB of HBM2e on a 5120-bit bus. The Intel Arc A310E provides 124.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Can the NVIDIA H100 CNX drive a display?

A: No. The H100 CNX has no display outputs. The Intel Arc A310E has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has a 350 W TDP, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, and requires a 750 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX delivers 53.84 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A310E includes 6 RT cores. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has no RT cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The Intel Arc A310E is end-of-life, while the NVIDIA H100 CNX is active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc A310E versus the NVIDIA H100 CNX, and both cards have zero wins in direct comparisons. With no recorded scores, the performance relationship must be established through the measured specifications that define each card's capabilities.

The greatest single gap is memory bandwidth. The H100 CNX reaches 2.04 TB/s, which is over 16 times the 124.0 GB/s of the Arc A310E. That bandwidth advantage pairs with an 80 GB memory capacity versus 4 GB, a 20-fold difference. For workloads that stream large datasets, the H100 CNX has a decisive structural lead.

Compute throughput tells a similar story. The H100 CNX delivers 53.84 TFLOPS of FP32, about 17.5 times the 3.072 TFLOPS of the Arc A310E. In FP16, the H100 CNX reaches 215.4 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio, while the Arc A310E manages 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The H100 CNX advantage here is roughly 35 times. The H100 CNX also has 456 tensor cores, a feature class absent from the Arc A310E entirely.

The Arc A310E counters in areas relevant to client graphics. It has a higher base clock at 2000 MHz versus 690 MHz, though the H100 CNX boosts to 1845 MHz. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the H100 CNX has 14592 shading units, 456 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The H100 CNX is far larger in every compute resource except ROP count relative to its shading unit scale. The Arc A310E pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s versus 44.28 GPixel/s for the H100 CNX, a narrower gap than the compute figures suggest. The Arc A310E texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s versus 841.3 GTexel/s for the H100 CNX.

The H100 CNX also carries a newer PCIe interface at 5.0 x16 versus the Arc A310E's 4.0 x8, which affects host transfer bandwidth. The Arc A310E uses a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, while the H100 CNX uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. The H100 CNX has a higher transistor density at 98.3M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm² for the Arc A310E.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable field. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip with Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture, part of the Server Hopper generation.

Memory configuration is a primary split. The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H100 CNX has 80 GB of HBM2e on a 5120-bit bus with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks differ as well: 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective for the Arc A310E, versus 1593 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective for the H100 CNX.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. The H100 CNX has 14592 shading units, 456 TMUs, 24 ROPs, no listed RT cores, and 456 tensor cores. The Arc A310E achieves a pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 64.00 GTexel/s. The H100 CNX achieves 44.28 GPixel/s and 841.3 GTexel/s.

Clocks are structured differently. The Arc A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The H100 CNX has a 690 MHz base clock and an 1845 MHz boost clock. FP32 output favors the H100 CNX at 53.84 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS. FP16 output shows 215.4 TFLOPS at a 4:1 ratio for the H100 CNX versus 6.144 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio for the Arc A310E.

Physical specifications also differ. The Arc A310E is 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, and 20 mm wide, single-slot, with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP. The H100 CNX is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, dual-slot, with an 8-pin EPS connector and a 350 W TDP. The Arc A310E suggests a 250 W PSU; the H100 CNX suggests 750 W. The Arc A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The H100 CNX uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no display outputs.

API support is exclusive to the Arc A310E. It lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H100 CNX lists no APIs in the database. Production status separates them as well: the Arc A310E is end-of-life, the H100 CNX is active. Release dates place the Arc A310E in March 2024 and the H100 CNX in March 2023.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA H100 CNX represent different architectural philosophies. The Arc A310E uses Xe-HPG on the DG2-128 chip, built for the Alchemist generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². Its predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip, part of the Server Hopper generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². Its predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell.

The H100 CNX has no RT cores listed, which indicates a compute-first design. The Arc A310E includes 6 RT cores for ray tracing workloads. The H100 CNX instead carries 456 tensor cores, which are absent from the Arc A310E. The FP16 ratio difference, 4:1 for the H100 CNX versus 2:1 for the Arc A310E, points to different throughput priorities. The H100 CNX is built for accelerated matrix math and large-scale data movement, while the Arc A310E is built for conventional graphics rendering.

The process node and transistor budget differences are substantial. The H100 CNX uses more than 11 times the transistor count of the Arc A310E on a die that is more than 5 times larger. The higher density of the 5 nm process allows the H100 CNX to pack more compute resources into its physical footprint, though the die itself is still massive at 814 mm².

The Arc A310E has a single-slot, low-profile mechanical design with no power connector, which fits its role as a low-power graphics solution. The H100 CNX is a dual-slot accelerator with an EPS power connector, reflecting its data center positioning. The Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the H100 CNX lists no graphics APIs, reinforcing that it is not a client rendering product.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these two cards should not be compared as alternatives. The Intel Arc A310E is a 75 W single-slot graphics card with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, four display outputs, and support for client graphics APIs. It is end-of-life and suited for basic visual output and light rendering tasks where space and power are limited.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX is a 350 W dual-slot compute accelerator with 80 GB of HBM2e memory, 2.04 TB/s bandwidth, 456 tensor cores, and FP16 throughput of 215.4 TFLOPS. It has no display outputs and no graphics API support, and it is an active product. It is designed for server-side compute workloads that demand massive memory capacity and parallel processing power.

The recorded data shows no benchmark overlap between the two. The Arc A310E wins in compactness, display connectivity, and low power draw. The H100 CNX wins in every compute and memory metric by wide margins. A builder with a small chassis and a need for multi-display output would choose the Arc A310E. A data center operator with compute-heavy workloads would choose the H100 CNX. The specifications make that division unambiguous.