Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation occupy very different tiers of the database, and the recorded data shows a decisive performance gap. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation holds a 63rd percentile ranking across all GPUs, while the Arc A310E sits at the 50th percentile. The benchmark scores, where available, confirm the NVIDIA part as the dominant performer, though the Intel card offers its own set of architectural and physical advantages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation. However, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a full suite of recorded scores, and its aggregate average benchmark score is 18,954. The Arc A310E records an average benchmark score of 0, indicating no completed benchmark runs are available for that part in the current database.

Looking at the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s individual results provides context for its position. Its Passmark G3D score is 16,927, which is a strong showing for workstation-class tasks. The Geekbench Vulkan score reaches 83,360, while the Geekbench OpenCL score is 78,074. These figures place the RTX 2000 Ada Generation comfortably ahead of the nearest rivals in its percentile band. The database shows it is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (average score 19,030) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (average score 19,036), and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K80 (average score 18,866). It also trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile by 0.5%, which records an average score of 19,049.

For the Arc A310E, the absence of benchmark scores means the database cannot quantify its performance against the RTX 2000 Ada Generation directly. The wins count stands at 0 for the Intel part and 0 for the NVIDIA part, reflecting the lack of direct comparison data. What the database does show is the theoretical compute capacity: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers 12.00 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. That is a roughly fourfold difference in raw floating-point throughput, which aligns with the NVIDIA card’s higher shading unit count of 2,816 versus 768 for the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors packed into a 157 mm² die. The transistor density measures 45.9M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip with the Ada Lovelace architecture, from the Workstation Ada (x000A) generation. It is built on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC, with 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, yielding a significantly higher transistor density of 118.9M per mm².

These architectural differences manifest in the compute resources. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 2,816 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. It also includes 22 ray tracing cores and 88 tensor cores. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units, with only 6 ray tracing cores and no tensor core count listed in the database. The NVIDIA part’s FP16 performance is 12.00 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Intel part achieves 6.144 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s. Clock speeds differ as well: the Intel part runs at a fixed 2000 MHz base and boost, while the NVIDIA part has a 1620 MHz base clock and a 2130 MHz boost clock. The memory clock for the Arc A310E is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), and for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation it is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

The production status and release timing also differ. The Arc A310E is marked as end-of-life, having been released on 2024-03-31, with its predecessor listed as Xe Graphics and its successor as Battlemage. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is active, released on 2024-02-11, succeeding Workstation Ampere and preceding Blackwell PRO W. Both cards share the same PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface and support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear winner for raw performance. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers 12.00 TFLOPS FP32, 16 GB of memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, and a 63rd percentile ranking. The Intel Arc A310E offers 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, 4 GB of memory with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, and a 50th percentile ranking. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation also has 22 ray tracing cores and 88 tensor cores, features that are either absent or minimal on the Arc A310E, which has only 6 ray tracing cores and no listed tensor cores.

For professional workstation workloads, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the superior choice based on every measurable compute and memory metric in the database. Its nearest rivals in the database, such as the Quadro K6000 and Radeon RX 6600, are within 0.5% of its average score, indicating it competes at a specific performance tier. The Arc A310E, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores, making its real-world performance unquantifiable in this database.

The Arc A310E does have advantages in physical design. It is a single-slot card with a 75 W TDP, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is dual-slot with a 70 W TDP. Both use no power connectors and suggest a 250 W PSU. The Intel card also uses 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, whereas the NVIDIA card uses 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The Arc A310E’s dimensions are 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 168 mm length and 69 mm height with no width recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers 12.00 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the Intel Arc A310E’s 3.072 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, while the Arc A310E has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation boosts to 2130 MHz, while the Arc A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is active, while the Arc A310E is marked as end-of-life.

Q: What display outputs do they use?

A: The Arc A310E uses 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0, and the RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins in all compute-heavy categories. Its FP32 throughput of 12.00 TFLOPS is four times higher than the Arc A310E’s 3.072 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance of 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1) exceeds the Intel part’s 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1). The memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is more than double the Arc A310E’s 124.0 GB/s, and the 16 GB frame buffer is four times larger. The pixel rate of 102.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 187.4 GTexel/s dwarf the Intel card’s 32.00 GPixel/s and 64.00 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card also has 88 tensor cores, which the Arc A310E lacks entirely in the database.

The Intel Arc A310E wins on physical footprint and power draw. It is a single-slot card, whereas the RTX 2000 Ada Generation requires two slots. The Arc A310E’s TDP is 75 W, slightly higher than the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s 70 W, but both suggest the same 250 W PSU. The Intel card also has a smaller die at 157 mm² versus 159 mm², though the difference is negligible. The Arc A310E’s display output uses the newer DisplayPort 2.0 standard, while the NVIDIA card is limited to DisplayPort 1.4a. In terms of production, the Arc A310E is end-of-life, meaning it has a defined successor in Battlemage, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is active with a successor in Blackwell PRO W.

For users prioritizing compute density, ray tracing, tensor operations, and memory capacity, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the clear winner. For users prioritizing a slim single-slot form factor or newer display connectivity, the Arc A310E holds specific advantages.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node differs: 6 nm for the Arc A310E versus 5 nm for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. Transistor counts are 7,200 million versus 18,900 million, with densities of 45.9M per mm² versus 118.9M per mm². Die sizes are close at 157 mm² versus 159 mm². Clock speeds show the Intel part at 2000 MHz base and boost, while the NVIDIA part runs at 1620 MHz base and 2130 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for Intel and 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth all favor NVIDIA: 16 GB versus 4 GB, 128-bit versus 64-bit, and 256.0 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s. Shading units are 768 versus 2,816, TMUs are 32 versus 88, ROPs are 16 versus 48, and ray tracing cores are 6 versus 22. Tensor cores are absent for Intel and 88 for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s versus 102.2 GPixel/s, texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s versus 187.4 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 3.072 TFLOPS versus 12.00 TFLOPS. FP16 is 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 75 W versus 70 W, slot width is single-slot versus dual-slot, and display outputs are mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The Arc A310E has a width of 20 mm, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has no recorded width. Production status is end-of-life versus active, and release dates are 2024-03-31 versus 2024-02-11.