Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the production statuses of the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation?

A: The Intel Arc A310E is listed as end-of-life, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation is listed as active production.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ between the two GPUs?

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

Q: What is the difference in transistor count between the two chips?

A: The Intel DG2-128 chip has 7,200 million transistors, while the NVIDIA AD107 chip has 18,900 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation delivers 8.940 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the Intel Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A310E is rated at 75 W, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation is rated at 35 W.

Q: What are the release dates for the two products?

A: The Intel Arc A310E was released on 2024-03-31, and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation was released on 2023-03-20.

Architecture Differences

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 a die size of 157 mm² and a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the Ada-MW generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 159 mm² and a transistor density of 118.9M per mm².

The Intel chip packs 7,200 million transistors into a slightly smaller die, resulting in a much lower transistor density. The NVIDIA chip packs 18,900 million transistors into nearly the same physical area, indicating a significantly denser design. This density difference directly translates into the NVIDIA part having far more execution resources.

The Intel Arc A310E contains 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. It has no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation contains 3072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 24 ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has four times the shading units, three times the TMUs, three times the ROPs, and four times the ray tracing cores. The presence of 96 tensor cores on the NVIDIA side is a major architectural differentiator, enabling tensor-accelerated workloads that the Intel part cannot accelerate in hardware.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface differs: the Intel part uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16, giving the NVIDIA GPU twice the host link bandwidth.

The Intel Arc A310E has a base and boost clock of 2000 MHz, with memory clocked at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has a base clock of 930 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz, with memory clocked at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Despite lower clock speeds, the NVIDIA GPU's much wider memory bus and higher core count dominate performance.

The Intel GPU is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and dimensions of 168 mm length, 69 mm height, 20 mm width. The NVIDIA GPU is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, display outputs described as portable device dependent, and no listed dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data between the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation is empty, meaning no direct comparative scores are recorded in the database. However, the individual specification data provides clear performance indicators that can be analyzed.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation delivers 8.940 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.9 times the Intel Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. In FP16, the Intel part achieves 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA part achieves 8.940 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The NVIDIA GPU is 45.5% ahead in FP16 throughput.

Pixel rate favors the NVIDIA part at 69.84 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part, a 118% advantage. Texture rate favors the NVIDIA part at 139.7 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, a 118% advantage as well.

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator. The NVIDIA GPU has 256.0 GB/s, exactly double the Intel GPU's 124.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA GPU also has 8 GB of memory versus 4 GB, which matters for larger textures and datasets.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q operates at a 35 W TDP, less than half the Intel Arc A310E's 75 W TDP, yet delivers nearly three times the FP32 throughput. This indicates a substantial architectural efficiency advantage for the Ada Lovelace design on the 5 nm process with 118.9M transistors per mm².

Both GPUs are at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, with no average benchmark scores recorded. With zero recorded wins for either side in the head-to-head benchmarks, the analysis relies entirely on the specification-derived performance metrics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310E | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | Ada-MW |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 18,900 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 159 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 118.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 930 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 1455 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 32 | 96 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.00 GPixel/s | 69.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 64.00 GTexel/s | 139.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.072 TFLOPS | 8.940 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.940 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm | None listed |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-03-31 | 2023-03-20 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Ampere-MW |

| Successor | Battlemage | Blackwell-MW |

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation is the overwhelmingly more capable GPU across every computational metric. It delivers 8.940 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.072 TFLOPS, has 8 GB memory versus 4 GB, doubles the memory bandwidth, and features four times the shading units and ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part also achieves this while consuming 35 W versus 75 W.

The Intel Arc A310E does hold some advantages. Its base and boost clocks are both 2000 MHz, significantly higher than the NVIDIA part's 930 MHz base and 1455 MHz boost. The Intel part also has a larger physical footprint with defined dimensions, while the NVIDIA part is an IGP with no dimensions listed. The Intel GPU provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, whereas the NVIDIA part's display outputs are portable device dependent.

The Intel Arc A310E is end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with a successor in Battlemage. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation is active, released on 2023-03-20, with Blackwell-MW as its successor. The NVIDIA part is the newer architecture generation with a denser transistor layout.

For any workload involving ray tracing, tensor operations, high-resolution textures, or compute-heavy tasks, the NVIDIA part is clearly superior based on the numbers. The Intel part, with its higher clocks but far fewer resources, appears suited for lighter workloads where its compact single-slot form factor and direct display outputs are relevant.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation wins in compute-intensive scenarios. Its 8.940 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 139.7 GTexel/s texture rate, and 69.84 GPixel/s pixel rate show dominance in rendering pipelines, shader-heavy applications, and texture-bound workloads. The 96 tensor cores enable AI acceleration, a capability entirely absent from the Intel part. The 24 ray tracing cores provide substantial ray tracing capability compared to 6 on the Intel side.

The NVIDIA part also wins in memory-heavy workloads. With 8 GB capacity and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, it can handle larger textures, higher resolutions, and more complex scene data. The 128-bit bus versus 64-bit bus doubles the data throughput per clock.

The Intel Arc A310E wins in specific deployment scenarios. Its 2000 MHz boost clock, sustained across both base and boost states, indicates consistent performance without clock variation. The single-slot, 168 mm length, 69 mm height, 20 mm width physical profile with no power connectors makes it easy to install in constrained systems. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs provide multi-display capability directly from the card.

The Intel part's 75 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W indicates a self-contained power design, while the NVIDIA part's 35 W TDP suggests it is designed for systems where power is tightly budgeted. The NVIDIA part's IGP form factor and portable device dependent outputs indicate it belongs in mobile or compact platforms, not desktop towers.

The production status difference is notable: the Intel Arc A310E is end-of-life while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation is active. For new system designs, the active NVIDIA part has ongoing availability, while the Intel part would be sourced from existing inventory. The predecessor and successor lineage for the Intel part runs from Xe Graphics to Battlemage, while the NVIDIA part runs from Ampere-MW to Blackwell-MW, showing both are part of ongoing architectural families.