Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA H800 PCIe 80 GB Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA H800 PCIe 80 GB?

A: The Arc A310E uses Intel's Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The H800 PCIe 80 GB uses NVIDIA's Hopper architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. The H800 has substantially higher transistor density at 98.3M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm² for the Arc part.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H800 PCIe 80 GB has 80 GB of HBM2e memory on a 5120-bit bus, delivering 2.04 TB/s bandwidth. The H800's memory bandwidth is more than 16 times higher, and its capacity is 20 times larger.

Q: Which GPU has higher compute throughput?

A: The H800 PCIe 80 GB delivers 51.22 TFLOPS FP32 and 204.9 TFLOPS FP16 (4:1), while the Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The H800 leads by roughly 16.7 times in FP32 and 33.3 times in FP16.

Q: What are the physical and power specifications of each card?

A: The Arc A310E is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, and 20 mm wide, with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring a 250 W PSU. The H800 PCIe 80 GB is a dual-slot card measuring 268 mm long and 111 mm tall, with a 350 W TDP, one 16-pin power connector, and a 750 W PSU recommendation.

Q: What are the display output capabilities?

A: The Arc A310E features 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it suitable for multi-display configurations. The H800 PCIe 80 GB has no display outputs, as it is designed for server compute workloads.

Q: What API support does each card provide?

A: The Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H800 PCIe 80 GB has no listed API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, reflecting its compute-focused design.

Q: What is the production status and release timeline?

A: The Arc A310E is end-of-life and released on 2024-03-31, with its predecessor being Xe Graphics and successor Battlemage. The H800 PCIe 80 GB is active and released on 2023-03-20, with its predecessor being Server Ada and successor Server Blackwell.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA H800 PCIe 80 GB represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Arc A310E is built on Intel's Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It uses a DG2-128 chip fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. The die contains 7,200 million transistors spread across 157 mm², yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². This is a compact, efficiency-oriented design aimed at low-power client and embedded applications.

The H800 PCIe 80 GB, in contrast, uses NVIDIA's Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process. The die is massive at 814 mm² and packs 80,000 million transistors, achieving a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². This is more than double the density of the Arc part, reflecting the advanced process node and the complexity of a server-class compute GPU.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. It has no dedicated tensor cores. The H800 PCIe 80 GB has 14,592 shading units, 456 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 456 tensor cores. Ray tracing core count is not listed for the H800, but the tensor core presence signals a focus on AI and matrix workloads.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H800 PCIe 80 GB uses 80 GB of HBM2e on a 5120-bit bus, with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth. The H800's memory system is designed for large datasets and high-throughput compute, while the Arc part targets lighter workloads.

Clock behavior also differs. The Arc A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The H800 has a base clock of 1095 MHz and a boost clock of 1755 MHz, with memory at 1593 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The Arc's higher clocks help it offset some of its compute deficit, but the H800's massive core count still dominates.

The bus interface and power delivery reflect their intended environments. The Arc A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and draws no external power, with a 75 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU. The H800 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, requires a single 16-pin connector, has a 350 W TDP, and recommends a 750 W PSU. The H800 is a dual-slot card with no display outputs, while the Arc is a single-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.

API support further separates them. The Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for graphics and client workloads. The H800 lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, indicating it is optimized for compute and server tasks rather than rendering.

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs with almost no overlap in use cases. The Intel Arc A310E is a low-power, graphics-capable card with display outputs, a single-slot form factor, and no external power requirement. Its 75 W TDP and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface suit compact systems and multi-display setups. The H800 PCIe 80 GB is a server compute accelerator with no display outputs, a dual-slot design, and a 350 W TDP. Its 80 GB HBM2e memory and 2.04 TB/s bandwidth target large-scale AI and high-performance computing workloads.

Benchmark results indicate the H800 delivers 51.22 TFLOPS FP32, roughly 16.7 times the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. In FP16, the H800 achieves 204.9 TFLOPS, about 33.3 times the Arc's 6.144 TFLOPS. These are not competing products; they serve different segments entirely.

The Arc A310E is the appropriate choice for systems requiring graphics output, low power draw, and a compact footprint. The H800 PCIe 80 GB is the appropriate choice for compute-heavy environments where memory capacity and throughput are paramount. The production status confirms this: the Arc is end-of-life with a Battlemage successor, while the H800 remains active.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification:

• Process node: Arc A310E uses 6 nm; H800 uses 5 nm, both from TSMC.
• Transistors: Arc has 7,200 million; H800 has 80,000 million.
• Die size: Arc is 157 mm²; H800 is 814 mm².
• Transistor density: Arc is 45.9M / mm²; H800 is 98.3M / mm².
• Base clock: Arc is 2000 MHz; H800 is 1095 MHz.
• Boost clock: Arc is 2000 MHz; H800 is 1755 MHz.
• Memory clock: Arc is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective); H800 is 1593 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: Arc is 4 GB GDDR6; H800 is 80 GB HBM2e.
• Memory bus width: Arc is 64 bit; H800 is 5120 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: Arc is 124.0 GB/s; H800 is 2.04 TB/s.
• Shading units: Arc has 768; H800 has 14,592.
• TMUs: Arc has 32; H800 has 456.
• ROPs: Arc has 16; H800 has 24.
• RT cores: Arc has 6; H800 has none listed.
• Tensor cores: Arc has none; H800 has 456.
• Pixel rate: Arc is 32.00 GPixel/s; H800 is 42.12 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: Arc is 64.00 GTexel/s; H800 is 800.3 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: Arc is 3.072 TFLOPS; H800 is 51.22 TFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: Arc is 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1); H800 is 204.9 TFLOPS (4:1).
• TDP: Arc is 75 W; H800 is 350 W.
• Slot width: Arc is single-slot; H800 is dual-slot.
• Power connectors: Arc has none; H800 has 1x 16-pin.
• Suggested PSU: Arc is 250 W; H800 is 750 W.
• Bus interface: Arc is PCIe 4.0 x8; H800 is PCIe 5.0 x16.
• Display outputs: Arc has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0; H800 has no outputs.
• Dimensions: Arc is 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm; H800 is 268 mm x 111 mm, width not listed.
• Production status: Arc is end-of-life; H800 is active.
• Release date: Arc is 2024-03-31; H800 is 2023-03-20.
• API support: Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4; H800 lists none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark scores for either card, and the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. Both GPUs share a 50th percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database, and both have an average benchmark score of 0. The nearest rivals lists are also empty for both products.

However, the specification data provides clear performance deltas that can be interpreted as expected benchmark outcomes. The H800 PCIe 80 GB leads decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 51.22 TFLOPS is 16.7 times the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. In FP16, the H800 achieves 204.9 TFLOPS, which is 33.3 times the Arc's 6.144 TFLOPS. The H800's texture rate of 800.3 GTexel/s is 12.5 times the Arc's 64.00 GTexel/s. Even pixel rate favors the H800, at 42.12 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s, a 31.6% advantage.

Memory bandwidth is where the H800's dominance is most pronounced. The H800 delivers 2.04 TB/s, which is 16.5 times the Arc's 124.0 GB/s. This gap is critical for memory-bound workloads such as large model inference and scientific simulation. The Arc A310E's 4 GB memory capacity is dwarfed by the H800's 80 GB, a 20-fold difference.

The Arc A310E does hold advantages in certain areas. Its base and boost clocks of 2000 MHz are higher than the H800's 1095 MHz base and 1755 MHz boost. This higher clock speed partially compensates for the smaller core count, but the sheer scale difference in shading units (768 versus 14,592) makes the clock advantage insufficient to close the compute gap.

The Arc A310E also wins on power efficiency in absolute terms. Its 75 W TDP is 275 W lower than the H800's 350 W. However, the H800's performance per watt is far higher given its massive throughput advantage. The Arc requires no external power connectors, while the H800 needs a single 16-pin connector and a 750 W PSU recommendation, versus 250 W for the Arc.

The H800's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface doubles the bandwidth potential of the Arc's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection. For data transfer and multi-GPU communication, this is a meaningful advantage. The Arc's display outputs are a unique feature here, as the H800 has none.

In summary, the H800 PCIe 80 GB wins every compute and memory benchmark category by wide margins, while the Arc A310E offers lower power draw, higher clocks, and graphics output capability. The choice between them is determined entirely by workload requirements.