Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA Rubin GPU occupy entirely different segments of the hardware spectrum, and the recorded data confirms this at every level. The A310E is a compact, low-power entry point in Intel's Alchemist lineup, while the Rubin GPU is a massive server accelerator built for extreme compute. The benchmark database shows no direct head-to-head measurements between the two, as their intended workloads and physical designs do not overlap. However, the specification differences are stark and quantifiable, and the following analysis interprets those numbers strictly from the recorded facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark results for the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. The A310E has a benchmark score of 0 in the recorded data, and the Rubin GPU also shows a benchmark score of 0. No wins are recorded for either product in head-to-head testing, as the two devices have never been measured against each other in a common workload. The percentile ranking for both GPUs is identical at 50, placing them at the median of all GPUs in the database, but this reflects their individual standings rather than any direct comparison.

What can be compared are the raw computational throughput figures. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. This indicates the Rubin GPU processes floating-point operations at a rate roughly 42 times higher, a figure derived directly from the recorded numbers (130.0 divided by 3.072). In FP16 workloads, the Rubin GPU reaches 260.0 TFLOPS, while the A310E reaches 6.144 TFLOPS, again a 2:1 ratio within each architecture but a massive gap between the two products.

Texture and pixel throughput show similar disparities. The Rubin GPU's texture rate is 2,031.2 GTexel/s, compared to the A310E's 64.00 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are 54.41 GPixel/s for the Rubin GPU versus 32.00 GPixel/s for the A310E. The shading unit count reinforces this: the Rubin GPU has 28,672 shading units, while the A310E has 768. These numbers indicate that the Rubin GPU is designed for massive parallel compute, whereas the A310E targets simpler graphics workloads with far fewer execution resources.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The Intel Arc A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors packed into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the Rubin architecture with the GR100 chip, belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It contains 336,000 million transistors on a 1,456 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 230.8M per mm². The process node difference alone, 6 nm versus 3 nm, accounts for a substantial density advantage in the Rubin GPU.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s and memory clocks of 1,937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16,384-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 22.1 TB/s and memory clocks of 2,695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The bus width difference, 64 bits versus 16,384 bits, is a 256-fold increase, and the bandwidth difference is similarly enormous.

The A310E has 6 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, while the Rubin GPU has no listed ray tracing cores but 896 tensor cores. The A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Rubin GPU lists N/A for all three APIs, indicating it is not designed for conventional graphics API workloads. The A310E's power envelope is 75 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Rubin GPU requires 2,300 W with a suggested PSU of 2,700 W. The physical form factors differ as well: the A310E is a single-slot card with no power connectors and dimensions of 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width, while the Rubin GPU is an SXM Module with no listed dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310E wins in scenarios requiring low power consumption and compact physical integration. Its 75 W TDP and single-slot design with no external power connectors make it suitable for small form factor systems where space and thermal headroom are constrained. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory with a 64-bit bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth provides adequate throughput for basic graphics tasks, and the 6 ray tracing cores offer hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects where available. The A310E's display outputs, 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0, allow direct video output, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can run standard graphics software.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins in every raw compute category. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 performance, 896 tensor cores, and 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth position it for heavy compute workloads such as large-scale data processing, AI inference, and scientific simulation. The 288 GB HBM4 memory capacity, running on a 16,384-bit bus, provides massive data access for models that exceed the memory capacity of smaller GPUs. The 2,031.2 GTexel/s texture rate and 54.41 GPixel/s pixel rate indicate high throughput for any graphics-adjacent tasks it can handle, though its N/A API support suggests those tasks are not the primary focus. The Rubin GPU's 3 nm process and 230.8M per mm² transistor density reflect a design optimized for maximum compute density rather than efficiency at low power levels.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates these two GPUs should not be compared as alternatives. The Intel Arc A310E is an end-of-life product released on 2024-03-31, succeeding Xe Graphics and preceding Battlemage. It serves as a low-power graphics solution with a 75 W TDP, 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, and 4 GB memory, appropriate for basic rendering and display output. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is an active product with a release date of 2025-12-31, succeeding Server Blackwell. It is a 2,300 W server module with 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, 288 GB HBM4, and 896 tensor cores, designed for extreme compute tasks.

For users or systems requiring a small, low-power graphics card with display outputs and standard API support, the A310E is the only viable choice based on the data. The Rubin GPU has no display outputs and no graphics API support, making it unsuitable for direct display or consumer graphics workloads. For users or systems requiring maximum compute throughput, memory capacity, or tensor core acceleration, the Rubin GPU is the clear choice, as its performance numbers exceed the A310E by orders of magnitude in every measured category. The production status difference, end-of-life versus active, further suggests that the A310E is a legacy product while the Rubin GPU represents current server technology.

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference between the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS, a difference of roughly 42 times in favor of the Rubin GPU.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have, and what type?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16,384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores, and how many?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 896 tensor cores. The Intel Arc A310E has no tensor cores listed in the data.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2,300 W and a suggested PSU of 2,700 W.

Q: Does either GPU support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan?

A: The Intel Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU lists N/A for all three APIs, indicating no support for these graphics APIs.

Q: What is the manufacturing process for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A310E is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 1,456 mm² versus 157 mm² for the A310E.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU:

• Chip: DG2-128 versus GR100
• Architecture: Xe-HPG versus Rubin
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 3) versus Server Rubin (Rxx)
• Process Node: 6 nm versus 3 nm
• Transistors: 7,200 million versus 336,000 million
• Die Size: 157 mm² versus 1,456 mm²
• Transistor Density: 45.9M per mm² versus 230.8M per mm²
• Base Clock: 2000 MHz versus 700 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2000 MHz versus 2267 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB versus 288 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 versus HBM4
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit versus 16,384 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 124.0 GB/s versus 22.1 TB/s
• Shading Units: 768 versus 28,672
• TMUs: 32 versus 896
• ROPs: 16 versus 24
• RT Cores: 6 versus null (not listed)
• Tensor Cores: null versus 896
• Pixel Rate: 32.00 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 64.00 GTexel/s versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 3.072 TFLOPS versus 130.0 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 6.144 TFLOPS versus 260.0 TFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W versus 2,300 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus SXM Module
• Power Connectors: None versus null (not applicable)
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 2,700 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 6.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus No outputs
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A
• OpenGL Support: 4.6 versus N/A
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 versus N/A
• Dimensions: 168 mm length, 69 mm height, 20 mm width versus null (not listed)
• Production Status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release Date: 2024-03-31 versus 2025-12-31
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics versus Server Blackwell
• Successor: Battlemage versus null (not listed)