Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA RTX A1000 occupy different corners of the GPU market, and the recorded data shows a clear separation in capability. The RTX A1000 holds a substantial performance lead across all measured benchmarks, while the Arc A310E counters with a more modern display interface and a denser manufacturing process. This analysis relies solely on the database measurements and specifications for both cards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX A1000 is the only card in this comparison with recorded benchmark scores. The database lists three tests for the NVIDIA card: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan. The Arc A310E has no benchmark entries, so its performance must be inferred from its raw computational specifications rather than direct measurements.

The RTX A1000 scores 969 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is a demanding modern DirectX 12 workload. This result places it at the 79th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 52,078 and Vulkan score of 49,574 show strong compute performance across both API families. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 34,207.

For context, the RTX A1000 sits very close to several established cards in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB, averages 34,154, which is only 0.2% behind the A1000. The AMD Radeon RX 560 XT also scores 34,133, another 0.2% difference. The NVIDIA TITAN V posts 34,355, which is 0.4% ahead of the A1000. The AMD Radeon RX 480 trails slightly at 33,997, putting the A1000 0.6% ahead. These margins are tight, indicating the A1000 performs in a well-established mid-range tier.

The Arc A310E has no direct benchmark results, but its FP32 throughput of 3.072 TFLOPS is less than half of the RTX A1000’s 6.737 TFLOPS. That gap suggests the Intel card would land significantly behind in most compute-heavy workloads. Similarly, the texture rate of 64.00 GTexel/s on the A310E compares to 105.3 GTexel/s on the A1000, a 64.5% deficit in raw texture processing.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A1000 provides 192.0 GB/s bandwidth through a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. The Arc A310E offers 124.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6. The NVIDIA card delivers 54.8% more bandwidth and twice the memory capacity.

Q: Are both cards single-slot designs?

A: Yes, both the Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA RTX A1000 are listed as single-slot cards. Neither requires auxiliary power connectors, and both have a suggested PSU of 250 W. The A1000 has a lower TDP at 50 W, while the A310E is rated at 75 W.

Q: What is the difference in transistor density?

A: The Arc A310E uses TSMC’s 6 nm process and packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding 45.9M transistors per mm². The RTX A1000 uses Samsung’s 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving 43.5M transistors per mm². The Intel card is slightly denser despite having fewer total transistors.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The Arc A310E uses four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors. The RTX A1000 uses four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. DisplayPort 2.0 is a newer standard with higher bandwidth capability.

Q: How do the FP16 compute rates compare?

A: The Arc A310E delivers 6.144 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The RTX A1000 delivers 6.737 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA card is about 9.7% faster in FP16, but its 1:1 ratio means it does not gain a throughput advantage from reduced precision.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The Arc A310E is marked as end-of-life, while the RTX A1000 is active. The Intel card was released on 2024-03-31, and the NVIDIA card followed on 2024-04-15.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Arc A310E is built on Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip from the Alchemist generation. This is the entry point of Intel’s Arc 3 lineup, succeeding the integrated Xe Graphics and preceding Battlemage. The RTX A1000 uses NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, part of the Workstation Ampere series that succeeded Quadro Turing and precedes Workstation Ada.

The manufacturing processes diverge: Intel uses TSMC’s 6 nm node, while NVIDIA uses Samsung’s 8 nm node. The Intel die is smaller at 157 mm² versus 200 mm² for NVIDIA, but the RTX A1000 carries more transistors at 8,700 million versus 7,200 million. The transistor density is close, with 45.9M per mm² on Intel and 43.5M per mm² on NVIDIA.

Shading unit counts differ substantially. The RTX A1000 has 2,304 shading units, three times the 768 found on the Arc A310E. Texture mapping units stand at 72 for NVIDIA versus 32 for Intel, and ROPs at 32 versus 16. The RTX A1000 also includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, while the Arc A310E lists 6 ray tracing cores and no tensor core count in the database.

The API support is identical on paper: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A1000’s tensor cores are notable for AI workloads, but the database does not provide specific tensor performance numbers for either card.

Specification Differences

Clock behavior separates the two cards. The Arc A310E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost, with no game clock listed. The RTX A1000 has a base clock of 727 MHz and a boost clock of 1462 MHz, a much wider range. Memory clocks also differ: the A310E runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective, while the A1000 runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and bus width are clear differentiators. The Arc A310E has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 124.0 GB/s. The RTX A1000 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 192.0 GB/s. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 46.78 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate favors NVIDIA at 105.3 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s.

Power draw is lower on the RTX A1000 at 50 W versus 75 W for the Arc A310E, despite the NVIDIA card having higher throughput. Both are single-slot with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. Physical dimensions are similar: the A310E is 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, and 20 mm wide, while the A1000 is 163 mm long and 69 mm tall with no width listed.

The bus interface is identical at PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs differ as noted: four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 on Intel versus four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on NVIDIA. The production status diverges, with the A310E end-of-life and the A1000 active.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the RTX A1000 as the stronger performer. Its benchmark scores put it at the 79th percentile among all GPUs, while the Arc A310E sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded scores. The A1000 has more than double the FP32 throughput, higher texture and pixel rates, more memory, and greater bandwidth, all while consuming less power.

The Arc A310E does hold advantages in specific areas. Its 6 nm process is denser and newer, its display outputs use the DisplayPort 2.0 standard, and its base clock is far higher at 2000 MHz. However, these attributes do not translate into measured performance wins, as the database shows zero head-to-head wins for the Intel card.

The RTX A1000’s nearest rivals in the database all score within 0.6% of its average, confirming it sits in a well-populated performance tier. The Arc A310E has no nearest rivals listed, which means the database lacks comparable cards at its performance level.

For anyone choosing between these two, the RTX A1000 is the data-backed option for raw compute and graphics workloads. The Arc A310E is a viable choice only if newer display connectivity is a priority and the performance gap is acceptable.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A1000 wins every measured performance category. It leads in FP32 compute with 6.737 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS, a 119.3% advantage. FP16 is closer but still favors NVIDIA at 6.737 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS, a 9.7% lead. Texture rate favors the A1000 by 64.5%, pixel rate by 46.2%, memory bandwidth by 54.8%, and memory capacity by 100% (8 GB versus 4 GB).

The Arc A310E wins in architectural efficiency metrics. Its transistor density is higher at 45.9M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm², meaning Intel packs more transistors into each square millimeter. Its base clock is 2000 MHz versus 727 MHz, and its boost clock matches its base at 2000 MHz versus 1462 MHz on the A1000. The Intel card also has a faster memory clock at 1937 MHz versus 1500 MHz, though the narrower bus limits usable bandwidth.

Display connectivity is another Intel win. The four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs support a newer standard than NVIDIA’s mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. For systems requiring the latest display interface, the A310E is the only one of the two that provides it.

The production status favors NVIDIA, as the A1000 is active while the A310E is end-of-life. For long-term availability and driver support, the active status of the A1000 matters. The release dates are close, with the A310E launching on 2024-03-31 and the A1000 on 2024-04-15, so neither has a meaningful longevity advantage based on release timing alone.

Power efficiency is a mixed story. The A1000 draws 50 W versus 75 W for the A310E, and delivers higher performance, making it more efficient per watt. The A310E’s higher clock speeds do not compensate for its lower compute resources. Both cards share the same suggested PSU of 250 W, so system power planning is identical.

The Arc A310E is also smaller in length at 168 mm versus 163 mm for the A1000, but the difference is minor and both fit standard single-slot chassis. The A310E lists a width of 20 mm, while the A1000 has no width recorded, so dimensional comparison is incomplete.