Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA RTX A400. However, the RTX A400 has a recorded average benchmark score of 6078, placing it at the 35th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals show a tightly clustered field: the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 6077 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049 (0.5% higher), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6117 (0.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon 760M scores 6019 (1% higher). This indicates the RTX A400 sits within a narrow performance band, roughly equivalent to entry-level mobile and older workstation parts.

The Intel Arc A310E has no benchmark records in the database, no average score, and no listed nearest rivals. Its percentile placement of 50 is recorded but not substantiated by any measured tests. This absence of data prevents a direct numerical comparison. The RTX A400 delivers measured results across several APIs. In Geekbench OpenCL, it records 22844, while in Vulkan it reaches 22237. Passmark results show 5983 in G3D, 2557 in GPU compute, 899 in G2D, 87 in DirectX 9, 37 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 10, and 27 in DirectX 12. These figures establish a baseline for the RTX A400 but provide no counterpart for the Arc A310E.

Architecture Differences

The two cards use fundamentally different designs. The Intel Arc A310E is built on the DG2-128 chip, using the Xe-HPG architecture, and belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip, based on the Ampere architecture, from the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. It is manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung, with 8,700 million transistors across a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm².

Memory subsystems differ notably. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, but the Intel part runs its memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), producing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA part runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), producing 96.00 GB/s. The Arc A310E therefore delivers 29% more memory bandwidth, a meaningful advantage for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Core configurations show both similarities and divergences. Each card has 768 shading units and 16 ROPs. The Intel chip has 32 TMUs, while the NVIDIA chip has 24. Both have 6 ray tracing cores. The RTX A400 adds 24 tensor cores, a feature absent from the Arc A310E. Clock speeds also differ: the Intel card runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, while the NVIDIA card runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. The higher clocks on the Intel card contribute to its higher peak rates. Pixel rate for the Arc A310E is 32.00 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX A400. Texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.072 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS. FP16 performance diverges sharply: the Intel card delivers 6.144 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card delivers 2.706 TFLOPS at 1:1.

Power and physical characteristics also separate the two. The Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W, while the RTX A400 draws 50 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and both suggest a 250 W power supply. The Intel card measures 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, while the NVIDIA card measures 163 mm by 69 mm with no recorded width. Display outputs differ: the Arc A310E provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors, while the RTX A400 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8. API support is identical on paper: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310E wins on raw throughput metrics. Its FP32 performance of 3.072 TFLOPS exceeds the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS by roughly 13.5%. Its FP16 output of 6.144 TFLOPS is more than double the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS, provided the workload can use the 2:1 rate. Texture rate is 51% higher at 64.00 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 13.5% higher at 32.00 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s. Memory bandwidth is 29% higher at 124.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The Intel card also has more TMUs (32 versus 24) and a smaller, denser die (157 mm² versus 200 mm², 45.9M/mm² versus 43.5M/mm²). Display output is newer, with mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus 1.4a.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins on power efficiency and measured compatibility. Its 50 W TDP is 33% lower than the Intel card's 75 W, meaning less heat generation and lower system power draw. It has 24 tensor cores, enabling AI and deep learning acceleration that the Arc A310E cannot offer. Its transistor count is higher at 8,700 million versus 7,200 million, and its die is larger at 200 mm². The RTX A400 has a recorded benchmark presence in the database, with an average score of 6078 and a 35th percentile ranking, giving it a verifiable performance baseline. The Arc A310E has no recorded benchmarks, so its theoretical advantages remain unmeasured. The RTX A400 is also listed as Active in production status, while the Arc A310E is End-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS, which is 13.5% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity and bus width?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The Intel card has higher bandwidth at 124.0 GB/s, while the NVIDIA card has 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Does the RTX A400 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 6 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A310E also has 6 ray tracing cores, so they match on this feature.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, while the Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP. The NVIDIA card draws one-third less power.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: Only the RTX A400 includes tensor cores, with 24 available. The Arc A310E has no tensor core count listed.

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6078, with measured results in Geekbench and Passmark tests. The Arc A310E has no benchmark records in the database, so no direct score comparison is possible.

The Verdict

The recorded data favors the RTX A400 for any use case requiring confirmed performance, lower power consumption, or AI acceleration. Its 50 W TDP, active production status, and measured average score of 6078 make it the safer choice in a professional workstation context. The 24 tensor cores provide a hardware capability the Intel card simply does not list. Its closest rivals, all within 1% of its average score, show it competes at the level of the Quadro P2000 and Radeon 760M, which are established workstation and integrated graphics solutions.

The Intel Arc A310E presents a stronger case on paper for raw compute and bandwidth. Its 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, 6.144 TFLOPS FP16, 124.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 64.00 GTexel/s texture rate all exceed the RTX A400. The 6 nm TSMC process gives it a smaller die and higher transistor density. The newer DisplayPort 2.0 outputs are another advantage. However, the complete absence of benchmark records in the database means these specifications have no measured confirmation. Its End-of-life production status also signals limited long-term support.

The choice depends on what the data verifies. For a card with proven results, lower power draw, and tensor core functionality, the RTX A400 is the documented option. For a card with superior theoretical specifications and newer display connectivity, the Arc A310E offers those advantages without measured validation. The RTX A400's 35th percentile ranking, surrounded by rivals within a 1% score band, shows it delivers consistent entry-level workstation performance. The Arc A310E's 50th percentile placement is recorded but unsupported by any benchmark data. Based strictly on available measurements, the RTX A400 is the only one of the two with demonstrated performance in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310E | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ampere |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) |

| Process node | 6 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 8,700 million |

| Die size | 157 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 45.9M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 2000 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2000 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| Tensor cores | None listed | 24 |

| Pixel rate | 32.00 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 64.00 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.072 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 50 W |

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

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 163 mm (6.4 inches) |

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

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release date | 2024-03-31 | 2024-04-15 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Battlemage | Workstation Ada |

| Percentile | 50 | 35 |

| Average benchmark score | No records | 6078 |

The two cards share shading units (768), ROPs (16), ray tracing cores (6), memory size (4 GB), memory type (GDDR6), memory bus width (64 bit), slot width (single-slot), power connectors (none), suggested PSU (250 W), bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x8), height (69 mm), and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4).