Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation represent two fundamentally different approaches to GPU design, separated by process technology, scale, and feature focus.

Intel builds the Arc A310E on the DG2-128 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The silicon is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, containing 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The chip is built around 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Intel includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores but no tensor-style AI accelerators. The GPU operates at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost clocks, with memory running at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) across a 64-bit bus.

NVIDIA's RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip with the Ada Lovelace architecture, belonging to the Workstation Ada generation. TSMC fabricates this on a 5 nm process, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, for a density of 121.8M per mm². The compute array is dramatically larger: 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. NVIDIA includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores, which are absent on the Intel part. The base clock is 1500 MHz, boosting to 2175 MHz. Memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) over a 160-bit interface.

The architectural philosophies diverge sharply. Intel uses a smaller, power-efficient design with a 75 W TDP and no external power connectors, drawing everything from the PCIe slot. NVIDIA scales up to a 130 W TDP with a single 16-pin power connector. The Intel card is end-of-life, while the NVIDIA card remains active in production. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API coverage is identical. The Intel part uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses the full PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, doubling the available bus bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provided for the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation shows it operating in a completely different performance tier. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 146,593, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 123,842. The average benchmark score across these tests is 135,218. The Intel Arc A310E has no recorded benchmark scores in the database and an average score of zero, placing it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs.

The NVIDIA card sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs, a massive gap. The nearest rivals in the database for the RTX 4000 Ada Generation are the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 (-0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (-0.4%), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 (-0.9%). These deltas show the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is essentially level with the A10M, fractions of a percent behind the W6800, and within 1% of the other workstation cards. This places the NVIDIA card firmly in the high-end workstation segment, trading blows with professional cards that cost substantially more.

The Intel Arc A310E, with no benchmark data and a 50th percentile ranking, cannot be directly compared on the same tests. Its specifications point to a low-power, entry-level design: 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. This is a card for basic display output, light compute, or embedded use cases where the 75 W power draw and single-slot, 168 mm length are advantages. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation, with 20 GB of memory, 360.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and 26.73 TFLOPS of FP32, targets professional 3D rendering, AI inference, and data science workloads.

The Verdict

The data indicates these are not competing products. The Intel Arc A310E targets low-power, space-constrained systems needing basic GPU acceleration with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation targets professional workstations requiring high compute throughput, large memory capacity, and tensor core acceleration.

Benchmark results show the NVIDIA card outperforming the Intel part by an enormous margin, though no direct head-to-head tests exist in the database. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's average score of 135,218 versus the Arc A310E's zero recorded scores means any performance comparison must rely on specification analysis. The NVIDIA card delivers 8.7 times the FP32 throughput, 2.9 times the memory bandwidth, and 5 times the memory capacity.

For a user needing a compact, fanless-capable display adapter with modern API support and low power consumption, the Arc A310E fits that role. For anyone running professional workloads, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the clear choice, sitting near the top of the GPU percentile rankings. The 95th percentile ranking indicates it outperforms the vast majority of GPUs in the database, while the Arc A310E sits exactly at the median.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, indicating neither card has a recorded victory in a direct comparison test.

However, the available data for the RTX 4000 Ada Generation allows for context. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 146,593 is the higher of its two results, showing strong compute performance in OpenCL workloads. The Vulkan score of 123,842 trails by roughly 15%, suggesting the card performs better in compute-oriented APIs than in graphics-oriented ones. This is consistent with a workstation card optimized for CUDA-style compute rather than gaming.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230, essentially identical to the RTX 4000 Ada Generation's 135,218 average. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 135,396, just 0.1% higher. These sub-1% deltas mean the RTX 4000 Ada Generation trades blows with the fastest workstation GPUs in the database. The Arc A310E has no nearest rivals listed, confirming its position outside the competitive performance landscape.

Specification differences reinforce the performance gap. The Intel card's pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 64.00 GTexel/s compare to the NVIDIA card's 139.2 GPixel/s and 417.6 GTexel/s. These are 4.4x and 6.5x differences, respectively. The memory subsystem tells a similar story: 124.0 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 6,144 shading units, while the Intel Arc A310E has 768. That is an 8x difference in raw shader count.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory. The NVIDIA card also uses a wider 160-bit bus compared to the Intel card's 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Both cards support ray tracing. The Intel Arc A310E has 6 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 48 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card also includes 192 tensor cores, which the Intel card lacks.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, with a suggested power supply of 250 W. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation has a 130 W TDP, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each?

A: The Intel Arc A310E sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile, meaning it outperforms 95% of all recorded GPUs.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature sets are identical, though the NVIDIA card has significantly more hardware resources to execute those APIs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310E | NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation |

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

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 2175 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 20 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 360.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 6,144 |

| TMUs | 32 | 192 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 6 | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.00 GPixel/s | 139.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 64.00 GTexel/s | 417.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.072 TFLOPS | 26.73 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) | 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 130 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 245 mm (9.6 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) |

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

| Release Date | 2024-03-31 | 2023-08-08 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Workstation Ampere |

| Successor | Battlemage | Blackwell PRO W |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 95 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 135,218 |