Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU occupy the same percentile ranking in the database, both at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, yet their performance characteristics diverge sharply due to fundamentally different design priorities. The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark scores, but the raw specification comparisons reveal distinct strengths. The Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Switch 2 GPU reaches 4.301 TFLOPS, a 40% advantage in raw floating-point throughput. However, the Arc A310E counters with a 124.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 102.4 GB/s on the Switch 2 GPU, a 21% lead in bandwidth efficiency. Pixel fill rates tell another story: the Arc A310E outputs 32.00 GPixel/s, which is 43% higher than the Switch 2 GPU's 22.40 GPixel/s. Texture fill rates are nearly identical, with the Arc A310E at 64.00 GTexel/s and the Switch 2 GPU at 67.20 GTexel/s, a marginal 5% difference favoring the NVIDIA part. These numbers indicate the Arc A310E excels at pixel-bound workloads, while the Switch 2 GPU holds the advantage in shader-heavy compute scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, so the analysis relies on the measured specification data and derived performance indicators. The FP32 compute figures show the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU delivering 4.301 TFLOPS, which is 40% higher than the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. This gap suggests the Switch 2 GPU processes shader instructions and general compute tasks with greater throughput, making it the stronger candidate for workloads that scale with raw ALU count. The Switch 2 GPU also carries 1536 shading units compared to 768 on the Arc A310E, exactly double the shader count, which aligns with the compute advantage.

Conversely, the Arc A310E posts a pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s against the Switch 2 GPU's 22.40 GPixel/s, a 43% advantage. This difference stems from the Arc A310E's higher clock speed of 2000 MHz base and boost, versus the Switch 2 GPU's 561 MHz base and 1400 MHz boost. The Arc A310E's boost clock runs 43% faster than the Switch 2 GPU's boost, directly contributing to the pixel throughput lead. Rasterization-heavy scenes, such as those with many overdraw layers or high-resolution framebuffers, would favor the Arc A310E based on this metric.

Texture rate is nearly a wash: the Switch 2 GPU produces 67.20 GTexel/s, only 5% ahead of the Arc A310E's 64.00 GTexel/s. The Switch 2 GPU has 48 TMUs versus 32 on the Arc A310E, a 50% hardware advantage, but the Arc A310E's higher clocks narrow the gap in actual throughput. Memory bandwidth diverges in the opposite direction: the Arc A310E's 124.0 GB/s beats the Switch 2 GPU's 102.4 GB/s by 21%, despite the Switch 2 GPU having a 128-bit bus versus 64-bit on the Arc A310E. The Arc A310E compensates with faster GDDR6 memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the Switch 2 GPU uses LPDDR5X at 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective), a memory technology with lower per-pin speed.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages and manufacturing processes. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation for Arc 3 products. 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 Switch 2 GPU uses the GA10B chip on the Ampere architecture, classified as a console GPU for Nintendo. It is built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, with an unknown transistor count and a 200 mm² die size. The process node difference gives the Arc A310E a density advantage, allowing more transistors per area, though the Switch 2 GPU compensates with a larger physical die.

Memory architecture separates the two significantly. The Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, achieving 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Switch 2 GPU uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 102.4 GB/s due to lower effective memory clocks. The Switch 2 GPU triples the memory capacity, which matters for texture-heavy games or larger working sets, but the Arc A310E retains a bandwidth edge. The Arc A310E supports PCIe 4.0 x8 as its bus interface, while the Switch 2 GPU has no documented bus interface in the database. Display outputs also differ: the Arc A310E has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors, while the Switch 2 GPU lists no outputs, reflecting its embedded console role.

Compute resources show structural differences. The Switch 2 GPU has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 12 RT cores, and 48 tensor cores. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. The Switch 2 GPU doubles the shader units, RT cores, and adds 48 tensor cores for AI acceleration, a feature absent from the Arc A310E's specifications. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature parity exists despite internal differences.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A310E wins in scenarios that depend on high clock speeds and memory bandwidth. Its 2000 MHz boost clock, compared to the Switch 2 GPU's 1400 MHz, drives the pixel rate to 32.00 GPixel/s, a 43% advantage. Applications that render many small triangles, perform heavy fragment shading, or output to high-resolution displays would benefit from this fill rate. The 124.0 GB/s bandwidth also supports faster data movement for textures and buffers, which can reduce stutter in open-world scenes or high-detail geometry streaming. The Arc A310E's 6 nm process and higher transistor density suggest better power efficiency per unit area, though the database lists its TDP at 75 W versus 40 W for the Switch 2 GPU.

The Switch 2 GPU wins in compute-heavy and AI-accelerated workloads. Its 4.301 TFLOPS FP32 output is 40% higher, and the 1536 shading units provide parallel execution capacity for shader-heavy rendering, physics simulations, or post-processing effects. The 48 tensor cores enable machine learning tasks such as DLSS-style upscaling or neural network inference, which the Arc A310E cannot perform due to the absence of tensor cores. The 12 RT cores double the ray tracing hardware of the Arc A310E, giving better performance in ray-traced lighting or reflections. The 12 GB memory capacity allows larger texture caches and more assets in memory simultaneously, reducing loading hitches in expansive game worlds.

The texture rate difference is minimal, so neither GPU dominates in that category. The Switch 2 GPU's 67.20 GTexel/s edges out the Arc A310E's 64.00 GTexel/s, but the 5% margin is small enough that real-world differences would be negligible. Pixel rate clearly favors the Arc A310E, while compute and AI features clearly favor the Switch 2 GPU.

The Verdict

The data points to two different use cases. The Intel Arc A310E suits environments where rasterization throughput and memory bandwidth matter most, such as lightweight desktop systems, embedded displays, or multi-monitor setups. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and single-slot design, combined with a 168 mm length and 75 W TDP, make it a practical choice for compact or low-power builds that need high pixel fill rates. The database marks it as end-of-life, with a release date of March 31, 2024, and a successor in Battlemage, suggesting it is a mature product for legacy integration.

The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU targets console gaming, where raw compute, ray tracing, and AI features take precedence. Its 40 W TDP, 12 GB memory, and 48 tensor cores align with a fixed hardware platform designed for optimized game code. The 4.301 TFLOPS FP32 performance and double RT core count give it a forward-looking feature set for advanced rendering techniques. The database lists its launch MSRP as 449 USD, and its production status is active with a release date of June 4, 2025, indicating a current product. The absence of display outputs confirms it is not a standalone graphics card but an integrated console GPU.

Neither GPU emerges as a universal winner. The Arc A310E leads in pixel rate and bandwidth, while the Switch 2 GPU leads in compute, memory capacity, and AI capabilities. The percentile ranking ties both at 50, and with zero benchmark scores recorded, the specification analysis provides the only basis for comparison. The Switch 2 GPU offers more raw processing power and modern features, but the Arc A310E counters with higher clocks and faster memory, making it more responsive in bandwidth-limited scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU delivers 4.301 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 40% higher than the Intel Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS.

Q: How do memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Intel Arc A310E provides 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 21% higher than the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU's 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more memory capacity?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 12 GB of LPDDR5X memory, while the Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate difference?

A: The Intel Arc A310E renders 32.00 GPixel/s, which is 43% higher than the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU's 22.40 GPixel/s.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: Both support ray tracing, but the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 12 RT cores, which is double the 6 RT cores on the Intel Arc A310E.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU operates at a lower TDP of 40 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310E | NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU |

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

| Chip | DG2-128 | GA10B |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ampere |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | Console GPU (Nintendo) |

| Process Node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 561 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective | 800 MHz 6.4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 32 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 6 | 12 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.00 GPixel/s | 22.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 64.00 GTexel/s | 67.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.072 TFLOPS | 4.301 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 40 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | null |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | null |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 | No outputs |

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm | 272 mm x 116 mm x 14 mm |

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

| Release Date | 2024-03-31 | 2025-06-04 |

| Launch MSRP | null | 449 USD |