Intel Arc A350M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Comparison

The Intel Arc A350M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 represent opposite ends of the mobile graphics spectrum, and the benchmark data confirms a decisive performance gap. In the two head-to-head tests available, the RTX 3080 wins both, but the margin varies dramatically by workload. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3080 scores 152,423 against the Arc A350M’s 24,546, a delta of -83.9% for the Intel part. This is a crushing, compute-heavy defeat. The RTX 3080’s raw FP32 throughput of 29.77 TFLOPS versus the Arc A350M’s 3.379 TFLOPS explains the scale of the disparity in this test. However, the Geekbench Vulkan result tells a different story: the RTX 3080 scores 33,620 versus 24,747 for the Arc A350M, a delta of -26.4%. While still a clear win for NVIDIA, the Vulkan gap is far narrower, suggesting the Intel architecture is comparatively more competitive in graphics API workloads than in pure compute. The Arc A350M’s average benchmark score of 24,647 places it at the 70th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 3080’s average of 23,172 sits at the 68th percentile. This counterintuitive ranking stems from the RTX 3080’s inclusion of additional tests in its benchmark suite, including Passmark scores where it posts a G3D score of 25,086, which drags its average down relative to the Intel part’s simpler two-test profile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in the head-to-head data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX 3080 outperforms the Arc A350M by a staggering 83.9%. The NVIDIA part’s score of 152,423 is over six times higher than the Intel part’s 24,546. This result aligns with the raw specification gap: the RTX 3080 packs 8,704 shading units and 272 tensor cores, while the Arc A350M has just 768 shading units and no tensor core listing. The RTX 3080 also delivers 29.77 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 3.379 TFLOPS for the Arc A350M. In practical terms, this means the RTX 3080 is in a completely different performance class for compute-oriented tasks like rendering or physics simulations. The Arc A350M’s nearest rivals in this metric are the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744, -0.4%) and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763, -0.5%), both of which are within a fraction of a percent of the Intel part. This places the Arc A350M squarely in the entry-level discrete GPU segment despite its modern Xe-HPG architecture.

The Geekbench Vulkan test offers a more nuanced picture. The RTX 3080 wins again with 33,620 points, but the Arc A350M’s 24,747 points represent a much smaller 26.4% deficit. This is notable because the Arc A350M’s Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, while the RTX 3080’s Vulkan score is dramatically lower than its OpenCL score. The RTX 3080’s Vulkan performance is closer to its nearest rivals in the overall average, such as the NVIDIA P106-100 (23,249, -0.3%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23,273, -0.4%). For the Arc A350M, its Vulkan score of 24,747 is 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24,277) and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442), according to its nearestRivals data. This suggests the Intel part’s Xe-HPG architecture has solid driver optimization for Vulkan, a newer API that benefits from the architecture’s tile-based rendering approach. The RTX 3080’s Vulkan score of 33,620, while lower relative to its OpenCL dominance, still represents a comfortable lead, but the data indicates the Arc A350M is not embarrassed in this specific workload.

Across both tests, the RTX 3080 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head matchups. The average delta across both tests is roughly -55%, but this figure is heavily skewed by the OpenCL outlier. The Vulkan result, with its 26.4% gap, is more representative of real-world gaming performance where graphics APIs are the bottleneck. The RTX 3080’s 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for ray tracing and DLSS, features the Arc A350M’s 6 RT cores cannot match, though benchmark data for those specific workloads is not present in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 wins both available head-to-head tests. It scores 152,423 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 24,546 for the Intel Arc A350M, and 33,620 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 24,747 for the Arc A350M.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 3080 leads by 83.9% in Geekbench OpenCL. The Arc A350M’s score of 24,546 is less than one-sixth of the RTX 3080’s 152,423, reflecting a massive difference in compute throughput.

Q: Is the Vulkan gap smaller than the OpenCL gap?

A: Yes, significantly. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 3080 leads by 26.4%, with a score of 33,620 versus 24,747 for the Arc A350M. This is a much narrower margin than the 83.9% OpenCL deficit.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A350M sits at the 70th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24,647. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 sits at the 68th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 23,172.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the Arc A350M based on average score?

A: The Arc A350M’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744, -0.4%), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763, -0.5%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442, +0.8%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24,277, +1.5%).

Q: Does the RTX 3080’s lower percentile contradict its head-to-head wins?

A: No. The RTX 3080’s 68th percentile versus the Arc A350M’s 70th percentile is due to the RTX 3080 having additional benchmark tests, including several Passmark scores, which lower its average. The head-to-head tests remain the most direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A350M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA102 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, with a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². The two chips have nearly identical transistor densities, but the RTX 3080’s die is four times larger, housing roughly four times the transistor count. The Arc A350M is a mobile-first design with a 25 W TDP, while the RTX 3080 is a high-power part with a 320 W TDP, reflecting their intended use cases.

The Arc A350M features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, along with 6 ray tracing cores. It does not list tensor cores. The RTX 3080 has 8,704 shading units, 272 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 68 RT cores, and 272 tensor cores. The RTX 3080’s FP32 throughput of 29.77 TFLOPS is roughly 8.8 times higher than the Arc A350M’s 3.379 TFLOPS. For FP16, the Arc A350M achieves 6.758 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX 3080 achieves 29.77 TFLOPS at 1:1, meaning the NVIDIA part maintains full rate regardless of precision. The Arc A350M’s pixel rate is 52.80 GPixel/s and texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s, versus the RTX 3080’s 164.2 GPixel/s and 465.1 GTexel/s.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature parity is complete. The key architectural difference lies in scale and purpose: the Arc A350M is a low-power integrated-style solution (marked as IGP slot width) for thin-and-light laptops, while the RTX 3080 is a dual-slot, high-performance mobile GPU with a 12-pin power connector and a suggested 700 W PSU. The RTX 3080’s predecessor is the GeForce 20 series, and its successor is the GeForce 40 series; the Arc A350M has no listed predecessor or successor, reflecting Intel’s debut in this market segment.

Specification Differences

The most consequential difference is memory configuration. The Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3080 has 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 760.3 GB/s. The NVIDIA part offers 6.8 times the bandwidth and 2.5 times the capacity. Memory clock rates also differ: the Arc A350M runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the RTX 3080 runs at 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The higher effective data rate on the RTX 3080, combined with the wider bus, explains the massive bandwidth advantage.

Clock speeds show a different pattern. The Arc A350M has a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the RTX 3080 has a base clock of 1440 MHz and a boost clock of 1710 MHz. The Intel part has a higher boost clock by 490 MHz, but the NVIDIA part starts from a higher base clock. This indicates the Arc A350M relies on aggressive boosting to compensate for fewer execution units. The RTX 3080’s shading unit count of 8,704 is 11.3 times the Arc A350M’s 768. Similarly, the RTX 3080 has 272 TMUs versus 48, and 96 ROPs versus 24.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The Arc A350M is rated at 25 W TDP and is designated as IGP slot width, meaning it is designed for integrated mounting on a motherboard. The RTX 3080 is rated at 320 W TDP, is dual-slot, and measures 285 mm (11.2 inches) in length, 112 mm (4.4 inches) in height, and 40 mm (1.6 inches) in width. The RTX 3080 has a 1x 12-pin power connector and requires a 700 W suggested PSU; the Arc A350M has no power connector or PSU requirement listed. The bus interface also differs: the Arc A350M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RTX 3080 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the Arc A350M, whereas the RTX 3080 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX 3080 has a launch MSRP of 699 USD. The Arc A350M was released on 2022-03-29, while the RTX 3080 was released on 2020-08-31, making the Intel part roughly 19 months newer, though both are now end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is the superior performer in every head-to-head test. Its 83.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 26.4% lead in Geekbench Vulkan are decisive, and its massive advantages in memory bandwidth (760.3 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s), shading units (8,704 versus 768), and FP32 throughput (29.77 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS) make it the obvious choice for any workload requiring raw compute or high-resolution gaming. The RTX 3080 also offers 272 tensor cores, which the Arc A350M lacks entirely, enabling AI-accelerated features that the Intel part cannot provide.

However, the Arc A350M is not without merit in specific contexts. Its 25 W TDP makes it suitable for ultra-portable devices where the RTX 3080’s 320 W TDP is physically impossible. The Arc A350M’s higher boost clock (2200 MHz versus 1710 MHz) and its competitive Vulkan showing suggest it handles modern graphics APIs reasonably well for its class. Its nearest rivals are entry-level parts like the GTX 1630 and RX 6600 XT, placing it in the budget mobile segment. For users who need a low-power GPU for light gaming or productivity in a thin laptop, the Arc A350M is a viable option, especially given its 70th percentile ranking. For anyone who requires high frame rates at high resolutions, ray tracing, or compute-heavy workloads, the RTX 3080 is the only rational choice based on this data. The RTX 3080’s 68 RT cores versus the Arc A350M’s 6 provide a 10x advantage in hardware ray tracing capability, and its 272 tensor cores enable DLSS, a feature absent from the Intel part. The verdict is unambiguous: pick the RTX 3080 for performance, pick the Arc A350M only if power consumption is the overriding constraint.