Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

The Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation occupy very different positions in the embedded and low-power graphics landscape. The recorded data shows a stark contrast in raw compute capability, memory configuration, and physical design philosophy. While the database lists no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two parts, the specification sheets provide enough recorded data to project relative performance tiers, thermal behavior, and application fit.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain direct benchmark scores for either GPU, so the analysis must rely on the recorded compute throughput figures and memory subsystem numbers. The most decisive gap appears in FP32 performance. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. This means the NVIDIA part provides approximately four times the single-precision throughput on paper. In practical terms, the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation would process compute workloads such as CUDA-accelerated filters, physics simulations, and general-purpose GPU tasks at a much higher rate, roughly 4.02 times the rate of the Arc A310E.

The FP16 numbers reinforce the same pattern, but with an architectural twist. The Intel Arc A310E reaches 6.144 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, which is a 2:1 ratio relative to its FP32 figure. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation also reaches 12.35 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, but the ratio is 1:1. The NVIDIA part still holds a 2.01 times advantage in FP16 throughput, but the Intel architecture shows a larger relative boost when switching from FP32 to FP16 workloads. The data indicates the Arc A310E doubles its throughput on FP16 operations, while the Ada part maintains a flat rate across both precisions.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same hierarchy. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation records a texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 96.48 GPixel/s. The Intel Arc A310E records 64.00 GTexel/s and 32.00 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part is roughly 3.02 times faster in texture fill and exactly 3.015 times faster in pixel fill. These figures suggest the Ada part can sustain higher resolution rendering and more complex texture-heavy scenes without becoming fill-rate limited.

The memory subsystem provides another measurable gap. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, producing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, producing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA part offers double the memory capacity and roughly 2.06 times the memory bandwidth. The clock speeds also differ: the Arc A310E memory runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) while the Ada part runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The bandwidth advantage comes primarily from the wider bus, not the clock speed.

The percentile rankings in the database place both GPUs at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, but this is a coarse measure. The average benchmark score for both parts is zero in the recorded data, which means no direct score comparison is possible. The compute and memory figures provide the only quantifiable basis for performance expectations.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from completely different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, belonging to the Ada-MW generation.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The Intel part uses a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts reveal a major design gap. The Intel DG2-128 packs 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA AD107 packs 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a density of 118.9 million transistors per square millimeter. Both dies are similar in physical size, but the Ada chip fits roughly 2.6 times more transistors into nearly the same area. The density difference comes from the smaller process node and the architectural complexity of the Ada Lovelace design.

The execution resource counts show the scaling of the NVIDIA part. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 3072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, 48 render output units, 24 ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores. The Intel Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed in the data. The NVIDIA part has 4 times the shading units, 3 times the TMUs, 3 times the ROPs, and 4 times the ray tracing cores. The presence of 96 tensor cores on the Ada part indicates support for AI-accelerated workloads such as DLSS and tensor-based inference. The Intel part has no tensor core count recorded in the database.

The clock speeds show a different strategy. The Intel Arc A310E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost clocks. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation runs at a 1530 MHz base clock and boosts to 2010 MHz. The Intel part holds a higher base clock, but the NVIDIA part reaches a slightly higher boost clock. The fixed clock on the Intel part suggests a simpler power management profile, while the NVIDIA part has a wider dynamic range.

The memory architecture differs in width and capacity as described earlier. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation also supports a different FP16 execution model: the 1:1 ratio indicates the FP16 units are full-rate rather than packed or doubled, whereas the Intel part achieves its FP16 rate through a 2:1 pairing mechanism.

The physical form factors are also distinct. The Intel Arc A310E is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) module with no recorded dimensions, designed for portable or embedded devices. The Intel part has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the NVIDIA part has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation records 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 4.02 times the 3.072 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A310E.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s. The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A310E support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A310E includes 6 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation includes 24 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the power draw of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested power supply rating of 250 W. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has a TDP of 50 W, and no suggested power supply figure is recorded.

Q: What process nodes are used for each chip?

A: The Intel Arc A310E uses a 6 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses a 5 nm TSMC process.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 96 tensor cores. The Intel Arc A310E has no tensor core count recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation dominates every measured compute and memory metric: 4.02 times the FP32 throughput, 2.01 times the FP16 throughput, 3.02 times the texture rate, 3.015 times the pixel rate, 2.06 times the memory bandwidth, and double the memory capacity. The Ada part does all of this at a lower TDP of 50 W compared to the Intel part's 75 W. The NVIDIA chip also includes 96 tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

The Intel Arc A310E has a higher base clock (2000 MHz vs 1530 MHz), but the boost clock of the NVIDIA part (2010 MHz) slightly exceeds it. The Intel part also has a fixed clock profile, which may simplify integration. The physical form factor of the Intel part is a conventional single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the NVIDIA part is an IGP module with no standard display outputs, relying on the host device for connectivity.

The database places both parts at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, but this measure does not reflect the large internal gap between them. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is the stronger compute and rendering part by a wide margin. The Intel Arc A310E is a lower-power, simpler card with a fixed clock and a standard display output configuration.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture. The manufacturing process is 6 nm for Intel and 5 nm for NVIDIA. The transistor count is 7,200 million for Intel and 18,900 million for NVIDIA. The die size is 157 mm² for Intel and 159 mm² for NVIDIA. The transistor density is 45.9 million per mm² for Intel and 118.9 million per mm² for NVIDIA.

The clock configuration differs: Intel runs at 2000 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 1530 MHz base and 2010 MHz boost. The memory clocks are 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for Intel and 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory size is 4 GB for Intel and 8 GB for NVIDIA. The bus width is 64-bit for Intel and 128-bit for NVIDIA. Memory bandwidth is 124.0 GB/s for Intel and 256.0 GB/s for NVIDIA.

The shader resources differ: Intel has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s for Intel and 96.48 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. The texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s for Intel and 193.0 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 3.072 TFLOPS for Intel and 12.35 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 6.144 TFLOPS for Intel and 12.35 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

The TDP is 75 W for Intel and 50 W for NVIDIA. The Intel card is single-slot, while the NVIDIA part is IGP. Power connectors are none for both. The suggested PSU is 250 W for Intel, with no figure for NVIDIA. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel and PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 for Intel and portable-device-dependent for NVIDIA. The production status is end-of-life for Intel and active for NVIDIA. The release date is 2024-03-31 for Intel and 2023-03-20 for NVIDIA.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation wins in every raw performance category recorded. It delivers higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, higher texture and pixel fill rates, more memory capacity, more memory bandwidth, and more ray tracing cores. The presence of 96 tensor cores adds an AI workload capability that the Intel part cannot match. The lower TDP of 50 W also makes the NVIDIA part more power-efficient per unit of compute. The 128-bit memory bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth support higher-resolution textures and larger datasets.

The Intel Arc A310E wins in a few narrower categories. It has a higher base clock at 2000 MHz, which may reduce latency in some fixed-frequency applications. Its single-slot card form factor with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs makes it a direct, standard display adapter. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is simpler than the x16 interface of the NVIDIA part, which could matter in bandwidth-constrained embedded slots. The release date is later, and the part inherits the Xe-HPG feature set including DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The Intel part also produces a higher FP16 ratio (2:1) relative to its FP32, which gives it a proportionally larger boost in half-precision workloads, though the absolute FP16 figure still trails the NVIDIA part by 2.01 times.

For systems that need maximum compute density, memory capacity, and AI acceleration in a low-power embedded module, the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is the stronger choice. For systems that need a standard single-slot card with fixed clocks, four DisplayPort outputs, and a simpler power profile, the Intel Arc A310E serves that role. The data does not record any scenario where the Intel part outperforms the NVIDIA part in absolute throughput or bandwidth. The choice depends on form factor and integration needs rather than performance expectations.