Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc A310E or the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. This means the comparative analysis must rely entirely on the architectural and specification data recorded for each part.

The most striking numerical contrast appears in raw compute throughput. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada delivers 12.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc A310E provides 3.072 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at approximately 4.2 times the single-precision throughput of the Intel part. The gap in FP16 is similarly wide: the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada sustains 12.99 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Arc A310E reaches 6.144 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio. Even accounting for the Intel part's faster 2000 MHz boost clock against NVIDIA's 2115 MHz boost, the sheer difference in shading unit count, 3072 versus 768, dominates the outcome.

Memory bandwidth shows an equally decisive split. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada accesses 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the Arc A310E manages 124.0 GB/s across a 64-bit interface. That is roughly 2.1 times the bandwidth for the NVIDIA part. The memory capacity also doubles: 8 GB against 4 GB. In texture and pixel throughput, the NVIDIA part records 203.0 GTexel/s and 101.5 GPixel/s, compared to 64.00 GTexel/s and 32.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part. These ratios, approximately 3.2 times in texturing and 3.2 times in pixel fill, align closely with the differences in TMUs (96 vs 32) and ROPs (48 vs 16).

Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada includes 24 RT cores, while the Arc A310E has 6. The NVIDIA part also integrates 96 tensor cores; the Intel entry records none. The transistor counts reflect the design scale: NVIDIA packs 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die, yielding a density of 118.9M per mm². Intel's DG2-128 chip holds 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for 45.9M per mm². The process nodes differ as well: NVIDIA uses 5 nm from TSMC, Intel uses 6 nm from TSMC.

Power consumption inverts the performance relationship. The Arc A310E carries a 75 W TDP, while the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada is rated at 50 W. The Intel part is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The NVIDIA part is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. This suggests the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada is designed for mobile integration where thermal and power budgets are tighter, yet it still outperforms the Arc A310E in every measured compute category.

The Arc A310E requires PCIe 4.0 x8 bandwidth, while the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs also diverge: the Intel card provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0, whereas the NVIDIA part lists "Portable Device Dependent" outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada wins every category where the database records a measurable specification. It holds a decisive lead in FP32 compute, FP16 compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, texture rate, pixel rate, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, and tensor cores. The only numeric advantages for the Arc A310E are a higher base clock (2000 MHz vs 1635 MHz) and a lower transistor density (45.9M vs 118.9M per mm²), though the latter is a process metric rather than a performance metric. The Arc A310E also carries a higher TDP (75 W vs 50 W), which could allow sustained operation in a desktop slot, but the recorded data does not include any thermal throttling or sustained-load measurements to verify that benefit.

The Intel part's single-slot form factor and 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs suggest a use case in multi-display or embedded environments where compact physical size and display connectivity matter. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada, with its IGP classification and portable-device-dependent outputs, targets laptop or mobile workstation designs. In a pure performance-per-watt sense, the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada appears more efficient: it delivers 12.99 TFLOPS at 50 W versus 3.072 TFLOPS at 75 W, which works out to roughly 0.26 TFLOPS per watt versus 0.04 TFLOPS per watt. That is approximately 6.5 times greater efficiency, though the database does not provide a direct efficiency metric.

For workloads that depend on FP16 throughput, such as certain AI inference or image processing tasks, the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada again dominates with 12.99 TFLOPS against 6.144 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part's 1:1 FP16 ratio means it does not sacrifice throughput when switching precision, while the Intel part's 2:1 ratio indicates a halving of throughput per operation. Tensor core availability on the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada further separates the two for machine learning tasks, though the database does not list specific tensor-core performance figures.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation outperforms the Intel Arc A310E in every recorded performance specification by a factor of 2 to 4. The NVIDIA part offers more than four times the FP32 throughput, more than twice the memory bandwidth, double the memory capacity, and four times the RT cores. Any workload that benefits from compute, memory, texturing, or ray tracing would favor the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada.

The Arc A310E holds only two practical advantages from the recorded data: a desktop-friendly single-slot physical format with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, and a higher TDP that might permit less constrained power delivery. Its 2000 MHz base clock is higher than the NVIDIA part's 1635 MHz base, but the boost clocks are nearly identical (2000 MHz vs 2115 MHz), so clock speed does not compensate for the massive difference in execution resources.

The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada is an active product with a successor listed as Blackwell-MW. The Arc A310E is end-of-life with a successor listed as Battlemage. The release timeline also favors the NVIDIA part's maturity: March 2023 versus March 2024. For any application where raw performance matters, the database clearly indicates the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada. For an embedded or multi-display system where the card must fit in a single slot and drive multiple monitors over DisplayPort 2.0, the Arc A310E presents a viable alternative, but only if the performance deficit is acceptable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation records 12.99 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc A310E records 3.072 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is about 4.2 times faster in single-precision compute.

Q: How does memory capacity compare between the two?

A: The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Arc A310E has 4 GB. The NVIDIA part also has double the bus width (128 bit vs 64 bit), leading to 256.0 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing hardware?

A: Both support ray tracing, but with different resources. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada has 24 RT cores, while the Arc A310E has 6 RT cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 96 tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU and no power connectors. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada has a 50 W TDP, is classified as an IGP, and has no power connectors or suggested PSU listed.

Q: Are the API features identical?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The only API-related difference is the absence of tensor cores on the Intel part, which affects compute workloads but not API compatibility.

Q: Which GPU has a newer manufacturing process?

A: The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada uses a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Arc A310E uses a 6 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA part also has a higher transistor density: 118.9M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada uses the AD107 chip based on Ada Lovelace architecture, in the Ada-MW generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but at different nodes: 6 nm for Intel, 5 nm for NVIDIA.

The execution resource counts reveal the scale of divergence. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That is a 4x difference in shaders, 3x in TMUs, and 3x in ROPs. Ray tracing hardware differs by a factor of 4: 6 RT cores versus 24. Tensor cores appear only on the NVIDIA part at 96 units, while the Intel part records none.

Memory architecture also differs. The Arc A310E uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB GDDR6 at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The aggregate bandwidth difference (124.0 vs 256.0 GB/s) reflects both bus width and clock speed.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell a story of design density. NVIDIA crams 18,900 million transistors into 159 mm², while Intel manages 7,200 million on 157 mm². The density gap, 118.9M vs 45.9M per mm², indicates that NVIDIA's process node and design approach pack far more logic into a similar physical area. The die sizes are nearly identical (157 vs 159 mm²), so the performance gap is not a matter of physical size but of architectural efficiency and transistor budget.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Arc A310E has a base and boost clock both at 2000 MHz, suggesting a flat frequency curve. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada has a base of 1635 MHz and a boost of 2115 MHz, indicating a dynamic range that allows higher peak clocks under load. The Intel part's higher base clock does not translate into higher sustained performance given the smaller execution resource pool.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The Arc A310E is a discrete single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada is an IGP with no recorded dimensions and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs.

The process node differs: 6 nm for Intel, 5 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count differs: 7,200 million versus 18,900 million. Die size is close (157 mm² vs 159 mm²), but transistor density is not (45.9M vs 118.9M per mm²). Base clocks differ: 2000 MHz versus 1635 MHz. Boost clocks differ: 2000 MHz versus 2115 MHz. Memory clocks differ: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration differs completely: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus for Intel, 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus for NVIDIA. Bandwidth is 124.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Shading units are 768 versus 3072. TMUs are 32 versus 96. ROPs are 16 versus 48. RT cores are 6 versus 24. Tensor cores are absent on Intel, 96 on NVIDIA.

Pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s versus 101.5 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s versus 203.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.072 TFLOPS versus 12.99 TFLOPS. FP16 is 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 12.99 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 75 W versus 50 W. The Arc A310E has a suggested PSU of 250 W; the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada has none. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16.

Production status differs: the Arc A310E is end-of-life, while the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada is active. Release dates differ: March 2024 for Intel, March 2023 for NVIDIA. Predecessors are Xe Graphics for Intel and Ampere-MW for NVIDIA. Successors are Battlemage for Intel and Blackwell-MW for NVIDIA. The API list is identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP.