Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA H800 SXM5 Comparison

The Verdict

The database records two fundamentally different accelerators that happen to share a percentile ranking. Both the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA H800 SXM5 sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, yet their design goals diverge sharply. The Arc A310E is an end-of-life, entry-level graphics card from Intel's Alchemist generation, built for compact systems with minimal power draw. The H800 SXM5 is an active, server-class compute module from NVIDIA's Hopper generation, engineered for massive parallel workloads in data centers. The data indicates no benchmark overlap exists between them, so direct performance comparisons rely on architectural and specification analysis rather than measured scores.

For a system builder needing a low-profile, single-slot display output solution with four mini-DisplayPort connectors, the Arc A310E is the only viable option in this pairing. It draws 75 W, requires no auxiliary power connectors, and fits within a 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width envelope. The H800 SXM5, by contrast, is an SXM module with no display outputs, a 700 W thermal design power, and an 8-pin EPS connector requirement, making it unsuitable for any client-side graphics role.

For a compute-focused environment handling FP16 or tensor workloads, the H800 SXM5 dominates categorically. Its 237.2 TFLOPS FP16 performance and 59.30 TFLOPS FP32 performance dwarf the Arc A310E's 6.144 TFLOPS FP16 and 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 figures. The H800 also carries 528 tensor cores, while the Arc A310E lists none, confirming the NVIDIA part as the compute specialist. The verdict from the recorded data is clear: the Arc A310E serves embedded or display-oriented tasks, while the H800 SXM5 serves high-throughput server computation. No middle ground exists between them.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators share TSMC as their foundry, but the similarity ends there. The Arc A310E uses a 6 nm process node, while the H800 SXM5 uses a 5 nm node. Transistor counts differ by an order of magnitude: the Intel chip packs 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a density of 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip integrates 80,000 million transistors across an 814 mm² die, achieving 98.3 million per square millimeter, more than double the density.

The Arc A310E belongs to the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip from the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). Its successor is Battlemage. The H800 SXM5 uses the GH100 chip under the Hopper architecture, classified under Server Hopper (Hxx), with Server Ada as its predecessor and Server Blackwell as its successor. The Intel part's predecessor is Xe Graphics.

Memory subsystems diverge completely. The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H800 SXM5 has 80 GB of HBM3 on a 5120-bit bus, delivering 3.36 TB/s, roughly 27 times more bandwidth. Clock behavior also contrasts: the Arc A310E runs a flat 2000 MHz base and boost, while the H800 SXM5 operates from a 1095 MHz base up to a 1755 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well, with the Intel card at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus the NVIDIA module at 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective).

Shading resources show the scale gap: the Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The H800 SXM5 has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. The Intel part lists no tensor cores, the NVIDIA part lists no ray tracing cores. Pixel rates are 32.00 GPixel/s for Intel versus 42.12 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rates are 64.00 GTexel/s versus 926.6 GTexel/s, a 14.5-fold difference.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for this pairing. The wins counters are zero for both sides, and the benchmark arrays are empty. This absence itself is informative: the two products occupy such different market positions that no standardized comparison exists in the database. The analysis must therefore rely on the specification-derived throughput numbers recorded for each part.

The largest gap appears in FP16 compute. The H800 SXM5 delivers 237.2 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio, while the Arc A310E delivers 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. That puts the NVIDIA module ahead by a factor of roughly 38.6 times. In FP32, the H800's 59.30 TFLOPS compares to the Arc's 3.072 TFLOPS, a 19.3-fold advantage. Texture rate favors NVIDIA by 14.5 times, as noted previously. Pixel rate shows the smallest gap, with NVIDIA ahead by only 1.3 times, reflecting the Arc's low ROP count of 16 versus 24 on the H800.

Memory bandwidth presents the second-largest differential. The H800 SXM5's 3.36 TB/s versus the Arc A310E's 124.0 GB/s means the NVIDIA part moves data 27.1 times faster. Memory capacity differs by 20 times (80 GB versus 4 GB), and bus width by 80 times (5120 bit versus 64 bit). These numbers indicate that any workload bound by memory throughput or capacity will overwhelmingly favor the H800, while the Arc's modest bandwidth suffices for its intended display and lightweight compute duties.

The only metric where the Arc A310E shows an advantage is clock speed. Its 2000 MHz base and boost exceed the H800's 1095 MHz base and 1755 MHz boost. However, the architectural gulf in execution resources negates this clock advantage entirely. The data shows that higher clocks do not compensate for 22 times fewer shading units.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 records 59.30 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the Intel Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS FP32. The H800 delivers approximately 19.3 times more FP32 throughput.

Q: What memory types do these cards use?

A: The Intel Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 uses 80 GB of HBM3 on a 5120-bit bus.

Q: Do either of these cards support DirectX?

A: The Intel Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Arc A310E has a 75 W thermal design power and a suggested power supply of 250 W, with no power connectors needed. The H800 SXM5 has a 700 W thermal design power, requires an 8-pin EPS connector, and suggests a 1100 W power supply.

Q: Can the H800 SXM5 output video?

A: No. The H800 SXM5 lists no display outputs. The Arc A310E has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA H800 SXM5 lists tensor cores, with 528 units. The Intel Arc A310E has no tensor core entry.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A310E wins in every category relevant to client graphics and compact integration. It is single-slot, measures 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, and draws 75 W with no auxiliary power connector. Its 2000 MHz clock speed exceeds the H800's boost clock. It provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, enabling multi-monitor setups. It supports the full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it functional for gaming or workstation graphics in a low-power chassis. Its 6 nm process node and 157 mm² die size allow for small-board designs. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory, while modest, matches its 64-bit bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth for undemanding workloads.

The H800 SXM5 wins in raw compute, memory capacity, and bandwidth. Its 80 GB HBM3 pool with 3.36 TB/s bandwidth supports large datasets that the Arc's 4 GB could never hold. Its 528 tensor cores and 237.2 TFLOPS FP16 throughput target AI inference and training, while its 59.30 TFLOPS FP32 and 926.6 GTexel/s texture rate handle simulation and rendering workloads. The 5120-bit bus width, 814 mm² die, and 80,000 million transistors indicate a design scaled for maximum throughput per module. Its 700 W power draw and 1100 W suggested power supply signal a server power delivery infrastructure, not a desktop one. The H800's 42.12 GPixel/s pixel rate also edges out the Arc, despite the Intel card's higher clock speed.

Neither part wins on price or availability metrics, as the database records no launch MSRP for either and no benchmark scores for either. The Arc A310E is end-of-life, while the H800 SXM5 is active, meaning procurement favors the NVIDIA module for new deployments. The Arc's successor is Battlemage, and the H800's successor is Server Blackwell, so both lines continue in some form.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications differ on nearly every field. Process node: 6 nm for Intel, 5 nm for NVIDIA. Transistors: 7,200 million versus 80,000 million. Die size: 157 mm² versus 814 mm². Transistor density: 45.9M per mm² versus 98.3M per mm². Base clock: 2000 MHz versus 1095 MHz. Boost clock: 2000 MHz versus 1755 MHz. Memory clock: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective). Memory size: 4 GB versus 80 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM3. Bus width: 64 bit versus 5120 bit. Bandwidth: 124.0 GB/s versus 3.36 TB/s. Shading units: 768 versus 16,896. TMUs: 32 versus 528. ROPs: 16 versus 24. RT cores: 6 versus none. Tensor cores: none versus 528. Pixel rate: 32.00 GPixel/s versus 42.12 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 64.00 GTexel/s versus 926.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 3.072 TFLOPS versus 59.30 TFLOPS. FP16: 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 237.2 TFLOPS (4:1). TDP: 75 W versus 700 W. Slot width: single-slot versus SXM module. Power connectors: none versus 8-pin EPS. Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 1100 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs: four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus none. APIs: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 versus no API entries. Production status: end-of-life versus active. Release date: 2024-03-31 versus 2023-03-20. Predecessor: Xe Graphics versus Server Ada. Successor: Battlemage versus Server Blackwell. The dimensions field exists only for the Arc A310E; the H800 SXM5 has no recorded length, height, or width. Both share the same percentile against all GPUs at 50, and both have zero average benchmark scores and empty nearest rival lists.