Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split decision between the Intel Arc A380 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, with each card winning five of the ten recorded tests. The most dramatic separation appears in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where the Intel Arc A380 scores 808 against the GTX 1650's 305, a 164.9% advantage. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison and indicates a substantial lead in modern DirectX 12 workloads. The Arc A380 also wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 38,224 points versus 29,629, a 29% margin, and the Geekbench Vulkan test with 36,736 versus 33,042, an 11.2% edge. These results suggest that in compute-oriented and API-modern scenarios, the Intel part is consistently ahead.

The GTX 1650, however, dominates in several legacy DirectX tests. In Passmark DirectX 9, the NVIDIA card scores 124 versus 73, a 41.1% lead. In Passmark DirectX 11, it scores 58 versus 38, a 34.5% advantage. The GTX 1650 also wins Passmark DirectX 10 by a narrower 5.1% margin, scoring 39 versus 37. In the aggregate Passmark G3D test, the GTX 1650 scores 7,880 versus 6,252, a 20.7% lead, and in Passmark GPU Compute it wins 3,048 versus 2,762, a 9.4% margin. The Passmark DirectX 12 test is a tie at 35 points each, recorded as a win for the Intel Arc A380 by a 0% delta.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Intel Arc A380 posts an average of 8,558 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GTX 1650 averages 7,472, placing it in the 40th percentile. The Arc A380's nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W5170M at 8,595 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8,462 (1.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8,458 (1.2% lower), and the AMD Radeon 880M at 8,436 (1.4% lower). The GTX 1650's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7,447 (0.3% higher), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7,441 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7,425 (0.6% higher), and the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (1% higher).

The Passmark G2D test, which measures 2D graphics performance, goes to the Arc A380 with 610 points versus 561, an 8.7% advantage. This is a smaller win but still a clear one. The overall pattern is that the Intel card excels in newer APIs and compute-heavy tasks, while the NVIDIA card retains an edge in older DirectX versions and in the traditional 3D gaming aggregate.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Arc A380 uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, belonging to the Alchemist generation within the Arc 3 lineup. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, containing 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 uses the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, part of the GeForce 16 series. It is fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip is therefore denser and newer in process technology, while the NVIDIA chip is physically larger but less dense.

Clock speeds differ notably. The Arc A380 has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2050 MHz. The GTX 1650 has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The Intel card runs at a higher frequency, which contributes to its raw throughput figures. The memory subsystems also differ: the Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1937 MHz and 15.5 Gbps effective, producing 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 2001 MHz and 8 Gbps effective, producing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel card offers more memory capacity and higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

Compute resources favor the Intel card. The Arc A380 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The pixel rate of the Arc A380 is 65.60 GPixel/s versus 53.28 GPixel/s for the GTX 1650. The texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s versus 93.24 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 4.198 TFLOPS versus 2.984 TFLOPS, and FP16 throughput is 8.397 TFLOPS versus 5.967 TFLOPS, both with a 2:1 ratio. The Intel card has a clear theoretical advantage in raw computation.

The API support also differs. The Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel card's DirectX 12 Ultimate support includes features that the older 12_1 level does not, which helps explain its strong showing in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The GTX 1650 has no ray tracing cores, while the Arc A380 has 8, making the Intel card the only one of the two with hardware ray tracing capability.

The bus interface differs: the Arc A380 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power requirements are similar on paper: both have a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, but the Arc A380 requires a single 8-pin power connector while the GTX 1650 has no power connectors listed. The Arc A380 is a dual-slot card with dimensions of 222 mm in length, 114 mm in height, and 42 mm in width, while the GTX 1650 is also dual-slot but slightly longer at 229 mm, with 111 mm height and 35 mm width. Display outputs differ: the Arc A380 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the GTX 1650 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to distinct use cases. The Intel Arc A380 is the stronger choice for modern DirectX 12 workloads, as evidenced by its 164.9% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It also wins in OpenCL and Vulkan compute scenarios, with a 29% lead in OpenCL and an 11.2% lead in Vulkan. The 8 ray tracing cores give it a capability that the GTX 1650 simply does not have, making it the only option for hardware-accelerated ray tracing between the two. The higher memory capacity of 6 GB versus 4 GB, along with higher bandwidth at 186.0 GB/s versus 128.1 GB/s, suggests it can handle larger textures and higher resolutions more comfortably. The 2D performance is also better, with an 8.7% win in Passmark G2D.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the stronger choice for legacy DirectX titles. Its 41.1% lead in DirectX 9 and 34.5% lead in DirectX 11 are substantial, and it also wins DirectX 10 by 5.1%. The Passmark G3D aggregate, which represents the overall 3D gaming score, goes to the GTX 1650 by 20.7%. The GPU compute score also favors NVIDIA by 9.4%. For users with older game libraries that rely on DirectX 9 or DirectX 11, the GTX 1650 offers better performance. The card also draws power from the slot alone, requiring no external power connectors, which simplifies installation in systems with limited PSU cabling.

The tie in Passmark DirectX 12 at 35 points each is worth noting. It suggests that in at least one legacy DirectX 12 measurement, the two cards are evenly matched, even though the modern 3DMark Steel Nomad test shows a massive Intel advantage. This could indicate that the GTX 1650's driver optimizations for older DirectX 12 titles remain competitive, while the Arc A380 pulls ahead in newer, more demanding workloads.

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards depends almost entirely on the target workload. The Intel Arc A380 is the better pick for users running modern games and applications that use DirectX 12 Ultimate features, Vulkan, or OpenCL compute. Its 164.9% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is the defining metric, and its 29% OpenCL and 11.2% Vulkan wins reinforce that position. The inclusion of 8 ray tracing cores means it can handle ray-traced effects that are completely unavailable on the GTX 1650. The higher memory capacity and bandwidth also provide headroom for modern game assets. The average benchmark score of 8,558 versus 7,472 gives the Arc A380 a 14.5% overall lead in the database's aggregate metric.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the better pick for users with a library of older DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 games. The 41.1% DirectX 9 lead and 34.5% DirectX 11 lead are decisive, and the 20.7% Passmark G3D advantage shows that in conventional 3D gaming benchmarks, NVIDIA still holds the edge. The GTX 1650 also requires no external power connector, which may matter for upgrades in pre-built systems with limited power delivery. Its 40th percentile ranking versus the Arc A380's 44th percentile places it slightly lower in the overall distribution, but the legacy API performance is clearly superior.

The data does not support a universal winner. The Intel card wins in modern compute and ray tracing scenarios, while the NVIDIA card wins in legacy rasterization and older API workloads. Buyers should match the card to their actual software. The Arc A380 launched with a 149 USD MSRP, and the GTX 1650 also launched with a 149 USD MSRP, but both are now end-of-life products, so availability will vary.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in DirectX 12?

A: The Intel Arc A380 wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test decisively, scoring 808 versus 305, a 164.9% advantage. The Passmark DirectX 12 test is a tie at 35 points each.

Q: Does the GTX 1650 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 1650 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database, while the Intel Arc A380 has 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus. The GTX 1650 has 128.1 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do the two cards compare in legacy DirectX 9 performance?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 124 in Passmark DirectX 9 versus 73 for the Arc A380, a 41.1% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Arc A380 averages 8,558 across all recorded tests, while the GTX 1650 averages 7,472. The Arc A380 sits in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, the GTX 1650 in the 40th.

Q: Which card requires an external power connector?

A: The Intel Arc A380 requires a single 8-pin power connector, while the GTX 1650 has no power connectors listed. Both have a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc A380 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Turing |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | GeForce 16 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 1485 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2050 MHz | 1665 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 96 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 186.0 GB/s | 128.1 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 896 |

| TMUs | 64 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 65.60 GPixel/s | 53.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 131.2 GTexel/s | 93.24 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.198 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | 222 mm x 114 mm x 42 mm | 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm |

| Release Date | 2022-06-13 | 2019-04-22 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | GeForce 10 |

| Successor | Battlemage | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | 149 USD |