Intel Arc A380E vs Intel Arc A380E x2 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Arc A380E and Intel Arc A380E x2 share the same underlying silicon, architecture, and core configuration. The primary distinction lies in power delivery and board design. The single A380E is a 75 W card with no power connectors, drawing entirely from the PCIe slot. The x2 variant is a 130 W card with a 1x 6-pin connector, requiring a 300 W suggested power supply instead of 250 W. Both cards sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, and both have an average benchmark score of zero, meaning the recorded data shows no performance separation between them. For a user with a modest system and no auxiliary power headers, the A380E is the appropriate choice. For a system with a 6-pin connector available and a higher-capacity power supply, the x2 variant offers the same core specifications with a higher power ceiling, though the database contains no benchmark results to confirm a performance benefit from that additional power.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the DG2-128 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The process node is 6 nm at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The shading unit count is 1,024, with 64 texture mapping units, 32 raster output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The memory subsystem is identical: 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, running at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), providing 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s, FP32 throughput is 4.096 TFLOPS, and FP16 throughput is 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1). The base and boost clocks are both 2000 MHz. The only architectural difference between the two is the power delivery configuration: the A380E has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors, while the x2 has a 130 W TDP with a single 6-pin connector. This difference does not alter the core compute resources, memory configuration, or API support. Both cards use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface and are single-slot designs. The x2 offers eight mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the standard A380E provides four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. Both are end-of-life products, released on the same date, with Xe Graphics as the predecessor and Battlemage as the successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table for these two GPUs is empty. The wins tally for each card is zero, and there are no recorded performance scores to compare. The average benchmark score for both is zero, and the nearest rivals list contains no entries. This means the database has no measured data to differentiate the two in terms of frame rates, compute throughput, or rendering performance. The specification sheets are identical in every compute-related metric: same clock speeds, same memory bandwidth, same pixel and texture rates, same FP32 and FP16 throughput. The only numeric differences are the TDP (75 W versus 130 W), the suggested PSU (250 W versus 300 W), and the display output count (four versus eight). Since the core clocks are locked at 2000 MHz for both base and boost on both cards, the additional power budget of the x2 does not translate into a higher clock speed in the recorded data. Without benchmark scores, the practical impact of the higher TDP remains unquantified. The percentile ranking for both is 50, indicating they sit at the median of the database's GPU performance distribution, but with zero benchmark scores, this percentile likely reflects their specification-based classification rather than measured results. The data confirms that these are the same GPU in two different board form factors, with no performance delta recorded between them.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in exactly four fields. First, the TDP: the A380E is rated at 75 W, while the x2 is rated at 130 W. Second, the power connector: the A380E has none, while the x2 has one 6-pin connector. Third, the suggested power supply: the A380E requires 250 W, while the x2 requires 300 W. Fourth, the display outputs: the A380E has four DisplayPort 2.0 ports, while the x2 has eight mini-DisplayPort 2.0 ports. The physical dimensions also vary slightly: the A380E is 254 mm long (10 inches), while the x2 is 265 mm long (10.4 inches). Both share the same height of 127 mm (5 inches) and width of 20 mm (0.8 inches). All other specifications, including the chip, architecture, process node, transistor count, die size, memory size and type, bus width, bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, ray tracing cores, clocks, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 and FP16 throughput, API support, bus interface, slot width, production status, release date, predecessor, and successor, are identical. The launch MSRP is not recorded for either card in the database.

FAQ

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the Intel Arc A380E and the Intel Arc A380E x2?

A: The A380E has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, while the x2 has a TDP of 130 W and requires a single 6-pin connector. The suggested power supply is 250 W for the A380E and 300 W for the x2.

Q: Do the two cards have the same GPU core?

A: Yes, both use the DG2-128 chip with the Xe-HPG architecture, 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The base and boost clocks are both 2000 MHz on each card.

Q: Is there a memory configuration difference?

A: No, both cards feature 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 1937 MHz memory clocks (15.5 Gbps effective) and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s on both.

Q: How do the display outputs compare?

A: The A380E provides four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the x2 provides eight mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. No other display output types are listed for either card.

Q: What is the physical size difference between the two cards?

A: The A380E measures 254 mm in length (10 inches), while the x2 measures 265 mm (10.4 inches). Both are 127 mm tall (5 inches) and 20 mm wide (0.8 inches), and both are single-slot designs.

Q: Are there any benchmark results showing one card faster than the other?

A: No, the database contains no head-to-head benchmark scores for these two cards. Both have an average benchmark score of zero, and the wins tally for each is zero. The percentile rank for both is 50.