Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Arc A310E does not contain any benchmark entries. Its average benchmark score is 0, and it holds a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs in the database. In contrast, the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation shows substantial measured performance. Its average benchmark score across Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests is 184,664, placing it in the 98th percentile of all GPUs.

The RTX 5000 Ada Generation delivers 175,286 in Geekbench OpenCL and 194,041 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Vulkan result is 10.7% higher than its own OpenCL score, indicating strong compute API scaling. The Arc A310E cannot be compared directly because no scores were recorded for it. The database shows the RTX 5000 Ada Generation has a 98th percentile placement, while the Arc A310E sits at the 50th percentile, a gap of 48 percentile points.

Within its nearest rival group, the RTX 5000 Ada Generation leads the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell by 1.4% in average score. It trails the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB by 1.3%, and it is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB. The GeForce RTX 4090 D sits 3.7% behind the RTX 5000 Ada Generation in average score. These deltas confirm the RTX 5000 Ada Generation operates in the same performance class as the A100 variants and the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, with only single-digit percentage differences separating them.

The Arc A310E has no nearest rivals listed in the database, so no head-to-head score comparisons can be made for it. The data indicates the RTX 5000 Ada Generation is a high-tier performer, while the Arc A310E's lack of recorded benchmarks leaves its competitive position undefined.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs differ at nearly every architectural level. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation uses the AD102 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, belongs to the Workstation Ada generation, and is also fabricated by TSMC but on a 5 nm node.

Transistor counts show a dramatic scale difference. The Arc A310E contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The RTX 5000 Ada Generation contains 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, with a density of 125.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA part has more than ten times the transistor count and a density nearly three times higher.

The compute resources reflect this gap. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 12,800 shading units, 400 TMUs, and 176 ROPs. The NVIDIA card also carries 100 ray tracing cores and 400 tensor cores, while the Arc A310E has 6 ray tracing cores and no tensor core count listed.

Clock behavior differs by design. The Arc A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, while the RTX 5000 Ada Generation has a 1155 MHz base clock and a 2550 MHz boost clock. Despite the lower base clock, the NVIDIA card reaches a much higher boost frequency.

Memory subsystems are in different classes. The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, generating 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, generating 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card offers eight times the capacity and more than four times the bandwidth.

Fill rates and compute throughput scale accordingly. The Arc A310E delivers 32.00 GPixel/s, 64.00 GTexel/s, 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, and 6.144 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The RTX 5000 Ada Generation delivers 448.8 GPixel/s, 1,020.0 GTexel/s, 65.28 TFLOPS FP32, and 65.28 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The NVIDIA card has roughly 21 times the FP32 throughput and 10.6 times the FP16 throughput, with the 1:1 FP16 ratio indicating full-rate half-precision execution.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP, a single-slot cooler, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation has a 250 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, one 16-pin connector, and a suggested 600 W PSU. The Arc A310E measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation measures 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height, with no width listed.

Interface and output capabilities differ as well. The Arc A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Arc A310E is end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with Xe Graphics as its predecessor and Battlemage as its successor. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation is active, released on 2023-08-08, with Workstation Ampere as its predecessor and Blackwell PRO W as its successor.

FAQ

Q: How do the benchmark scores compare between the two cards?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada Generation records an average benchmark score of 184,664, based on 175,286 in Geekbench OpenCL and 194,041 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Arc A310E has no recorded benchmark scores and an average of 0.

Q: What percentile does each GPU hold in the database?

A: The Arc A310E sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 5000 Ada Generation sits at the 98th percentile.

Q: How does the RTX 5000 Ada Generation compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB, 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, and 3.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 D. It is 1.3% behind the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing, and how many ray tracing cores does each have?

A: Both cards support ray tracing. The Arc A310E has 6 ray tracing cores, while the RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 100 ray tracing cores.

Q: What production status does each card hold?

A: The Arc A310E is end-of-life. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation is active.

The Verdict

The database shows two GPUs with completely different positioning. The Arc A310E is a low-power, end-of-life part with a 75 W TDP, 4 GB of memory, and no recorded benchmarks. Its 50th percentile rank places it in the middle of the database, but the absence of measured scores means no performance conclusions can be drawn from recorded data.

The RTX 5000 Ada Generation is an active, high-end workstation card with a 250 W TDP, 32 GB of memory, and an average benchmark score of 184,664. Its 98th percentile rank places it near the top of the database. The nearest rival data confirms it is competitive with the A100 SXM4 variants: 0.5% ahead of the 80 GB model, 1.3% behind the 40 GB model. It also leads the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell by 1.4% and the GeForce RTX 4090 D by 3.7%.

Users with workloads that require high FP32 throughput, large memory capacity, and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth would find the RTX 5000 Ada Generation suitable based on the data. The 65.28 TFLOPS FP32 figure and 100 ray tracing cores place it in a different performance tier than the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS and 6 ray tracing cores.

Users with power-constrained systems or those needing a single-slot, connector-free card might consider the Arc A310E, which requires only a 250 W suggested PSU. However, the lack of benchmark data for this card means its actual performance cannot be verified from the database. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation, by contrast, has verified scores and a clear competitive standing among its nearest rivals.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310E | NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | Workstation Ada |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 76,300 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 609 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 125.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 1155 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 2550 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 12800 |

| TMUs | 32 | 400 |

| ROPs | 16 | 176 |

| RT Cores | 6 | 100 |

| Tensor Cores | Not listed | 400 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.00 GPixel/s | 448.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 64.00 GTexel/s | 1,020.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.072 TFLOPS | 65.28 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) | 65.28 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 600 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) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

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

| Width | 20 mm (0.8 inches) | Not listed |

| 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 | 98 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 184664 |

The two cards share the same manufacturer foundry (TSMC), memory type (GDDR6), DirectX support (12 Ultimate, 12_2), OpenGL support (4.6), and Vulkan support (1.4). All other recorded specifications differ between the two.