Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation. Both entries have empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and identical percentile rankings at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. This means direct performance comparisons must be derived from the specification-level data rather than measured outcomes.

The most decisive gap appears in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 23.04 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc A310E reaches 3.072 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at 7.5 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part, a substantial margin that would dominate any shader-bound workload. The FP16 comparison tells a different story in terms of ratio: the NVIDIA card maintains 23.04 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel card reaches 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part still holds a 3.75 times advantage in FP16, but the Intel architecture's 2:1 rate structure means it devotes half its shader resources to FP16 operations, a design choice that narrows the relative gap.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation achieves 360.0 GTexel/s and 144.0 GPixel/s, compared to 64.00 GTexel/s and 32.00 GPixel/s for the Intel Arc A310E. This gives the NVIDIA part a 5.63 times advantage in texture fill and a 4.5 times advantage in pixel fill. For rasterization-heavy scenes with high resolution and complex shading, the NVIDIA card's fill rate advantages would translate directly into higher frame throughput.

Memory bandwidth presents another major separation. The NVIDIA card accesses 432.0 GB/s across a 192-bit bus, while the Intel card manages 124.0 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. This is a 3.48 times bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part. Combined with 12 GB of memory versus 4 GB, the NVIDIA card can feed its larger shader array with substantially more data per cycle and hold significantly larger working sets without spilling to system memory.

The ray tracing comparison is equally lopsided on paper. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, while the Intel Arc A310E provides 6 RT cores and no tensor cores. The Intel part lacks tensor core hardware entirely, which means any AI-accelerated workloads, such as DLSS-style upscaling or inference tasks, have no dedicated pathway on the Intel side. The NVIDIA architecture's 40 RT cores versus 6 gives it a 6.67 times advantage in ray tracing hardware count.

Clock behavior differs meaningfully between the two. The Intel Arc A310E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz base and boost, with no boost headroom. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation runs at 1725 MHz base and boosts to 2250 MHz, a 30.4% boost above its base clock. This dynamic clocking allows the NVIDIA card to scale performance under thermal and power headroom, while the Intel card operates at a static frequency.

Pixel and texture rate figures confirm the clock and shader count differences. The Intel part's 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs produce 32.00 GPixel/s and 64.00 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part's 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs produce 144.0 GPixel/s and 360.0 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card has 6.67 times the shader units, 5 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation dominates every measured compute and memory metric: FP32 is 7.5 times higher, FP16 is 3.75 times higher, texture rate is 5.63 times higher, pixel rate is 4.5 times higher, and memory bandwidth is 3.48 times higher. The NVIDIA card also carries 3 times the memory capacity at 12 GB versus 4 GB, and its 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware that the Intel part lacks entirely.

The Intel Arc A310E does hold advantages in specific physical areas. It is a smaller chip at 157 mm² versus 294 mm², draws less power at 75 W versus 100 W, and comes in a single-slot form factor with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA part uses an IGP form factor with no display outputs, meaning it requires a separate GPU for video output. The Intel card also has a lower suggested PSU rating at 250 W versus 300 W.

For workloads where display output is required from the card itself, the Intel Arc A310E has the functional edge. For workloads where raw compute, memory bandwidth, ray tracing, or tensor operations matter, the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation is the stronger choice by every specification in the record. The Intel card's 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs is identical to the NVIDIA card's 50th percentile, but with no benchmark scores recorded, the percentile field does not differentiate between the two.

The production status differs as well. The Intel Arc A310E is marked end-of-life, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation is active. The Intel card released on 2024-03-31, the NVIDIA card on 2023-03-20, making the NVIDIA part the older design by roughly one year. The NVIDIA card's predecessor is Ampere-MW and its successor is Blackwell-MW, while the Intel card's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture, belonging to the Ada-MW generation.

Manufacturing processes differ by one nanometer step. The Intel chip is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA chip uses a 5 nm process at the same foundry. Transistor counts diverge sharply: the Intel DG2-128 packs 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA AD104 packs 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding 121.8M per mm². The NVIDIA chip has nearly 5 times the transistor count and 2.68 times the density, reflecting a more advanced process and a larger design.

Shader organization differs fundamentally. The Intel part uses 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA part uses 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA card also includes 160 tensor cores, a component entirely absent from the Intel specification. Ray tracing hardware differs with 6 RT cores on Intel versus 40 RT cores on NVIDIA.

Memory architecture shows distinct approaches. The Intel card uses 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), producing 124.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card uses 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), producing 432.0 GB/s. Both use GDDR6, but the NVIDIA implementation uses a wider bus and faster effective data rate.

The bus interface also differs. The Intel card connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 4.0 x16. This doubles the available host link bandwidth for the NVIDIA part, which matters for data transfer in embedded and workstation scenarios.

API support is identical across both cards: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both support the same modern graphics APIs, so software compatibility at the API level does not differentiate them.

Physical design differs substantially. The Intel card is a single-slot design measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA card uses an IGP form factor with no display outputs and no recorded dimensions. The Intel card draws 75 W with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the NVIDIA card draws 100 W with no power connectors and a suggested 300 W PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 23.04 TFLOPS FP32, which is 7.5 times the Intel Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: Yes, both support ray tracing, but with different hardware counts. The Intel Arc A310E has 6 RT cores, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 40 RT cores.

Q: Which card can output video directly?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and can drive displays directly. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has no display outputs, so it requires a separate GPU for video output.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Intel DG2-128 is fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA AD104 is fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has tensor cores, with 160 of them. The Intel Arc A310E has no tensor core hardware.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310E wins in power efficiency at the system level. Its 75 W TDP is 25 W lower than the NVIDIA card's 100 W TDP, and its suggested PSU rating of 250 W is 50 W lower. For embedded systems with strict power budgets or thermal constraints, the Intel card's lower draw and single-slot profile make it easier to integrate.

The Intel card also wins in display connectivity. Its four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs allow direct video output, while the NVIDIA card offers none. Systems that need the GPU to drive monitors or embedded displays would require the Intel card or an additional GPU alongside the NVIDIA part.

The Intel card wins on physical footprint. It measures 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm in a single-slot design, whereas the NVIDIA card uses an IGP form factor with no listed dimensions. For systems where a standard slot-mounted card is preferable, the Intel part fits that role.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation wins in every raw performance metric. Its FP32 throughput of 23.04 TFLOPS dwarfs the Intel card's 3.072 TFLOPS. Its 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 3.48 times the Intel card's 124.0 GB/s. Its 12 GB memory capacity is 3 times larger. Its 360.0 GTexel/s texture rate is 5.63 times higher, and its 144.0 GPixel/s pixel rate is 4.5 times higher.

The NVIDIA card wins in ray tracing and AI workloads. Its 40 RT cores versus 6 gives it a clear advantage in ray-traced rendering. Its 160 tensor cores provide dedicated AI acceleration that the Intel card completely lacks. Any workload using tensor operations, neural upscaling, or inference would run on the NVIDIA card with dedicated hardware.

The NVIDIA card wins in host interface bandwidth. Its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides twice the lane count of the Intel card's PCIe 4.0 x8. For workloads that stream large datasets between CPU and GPU, this wider link reduces transfer bottlenecks.

The NVIDIA card also wins on transistor resources. Its 35,800 million transistors on 294 mm² give it substantially more compute hardware. Its 5120 shading units are 6.67 times the Intel card's 768, and its 160 TMUs are 5 times the Intel card's 32.

Specification Differences

The process node differs: Intel uses 6 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm, both at TSMC. Transistor counts are 7,200 million for Intel versus 35,800 million for NVIDIA. Die size is 157 mm² for Intel versus 294 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor density is 45.9M per mm² for Intel versus 121.8M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds differ: Intel runs at 2000 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at 1725 MHz base and 2250 MHz boost. Memory clock is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for Intel versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Memory configuration differs: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus for Intel, 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus for NVIDIA. Bandwidth is 124.0 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s.

Compute unit counts differ: 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and no tensor cores for Intel. NVIDIA has 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores.

Pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s for Intel versus 144.0 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s versus 360.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.072 TFLOPS versus 23.04 TFLOPS. FP16 is 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 23.04 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP is 75 W for Intel versus 100 W for NVIDIA. Slot width is single-slot versus IGP. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 300 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus none.

Dimensions are 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm for Intel, with no dimensions recorded for NVIDIA. Production status is end-of-life for Intel versus active for NVIDIA. Release dates are 2024-03-31 for Intel versus 2023-03-20 for NVIDIA. Predecessors are Xe Graphics for Intel versus Ampere-MW for NVIDIA. Successors are Battlemage for Intel versus Blackwell-MW for NVIDIA.

Both cards share DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. Both use GDDR6 memory. Both have no power connectors. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.