Intel Arc A380E vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc A380E versus the Intel Arc A380M. Neither part has any submitted benchmark scores, and the wins counter for each side sits at zero. Both GPUs share a 50th percentile standing against all GPUs in the database, and both carry an average benchmark score of zero. This absence of measured data means no numerical performance comparison can be drawn between the two from the available records.

What can be established from the specification data is that both GPUs are configured with identical compute and memory resources. Each delivers 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 8.192 TFLOPS of FP16 throughput at a 2:1 ratio. The pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s for both parts. Memory capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth are also identical: 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit interface with 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is the same at 1937 MHz, described as 15.5 Gbps effective.

The boost clock is the same on both GPUs at 2000 MHz. The base clock differs, with the A380E running at 2000 MHz and the A380M at 1550 MHz. Since the FP32 and FP16 figures are identical, the lower base clock on the mobile part does not change the rated peak throughput. The A380E achieves its peak at a constant 2000 MHz, while the A380M requires boosting to reach the same level. In sustained workloads where boost clocks cannot be held, the A380E's higher base clock could produce more consistent throughput, but the database does not include measured results to confirm this behavior.

The absence of benchmark data also means the thermal design power difference cannot be translated into a performance-per-watt comparison with any measured figures. The A380E is rated at 75 W and the A380M at 35 W. Without recorded scores, any statement about relative efficiency is unsupported by the database.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental architecture. They use the DG2-128 chip, which is part of the Xe-HPG architecture and the Alchemist generation, specifically Alchemist (Arc 3) for the A380E and Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) for the A380M. The manufacturing process is identical: 6 nm at TSMC. The die size is the same at 157 mm², and the transistor count is the same at 7,200 million, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm² for both.

The core configuration is unchanged between the two parts. Each GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 raster output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. Neither GPU has a listed tensor core count. The API support matches exactly: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The differences between the two are primarily in packaging and power delivery. The A380E is a single-slot card with a length of 254 mm (10 inches), a height of 127 mm (5 inches), and a width of 20 mm (0.8 inches). It requires no external power connectors and has a suggested power supply rating of 250 W. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface and provides four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

The A380M is an MXM module, using the MXM-A (3.1) bus interface. It has no listed dimensions, no power connector data, and no suggested power supply. Its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the outputs are determined by the host laptop or mobile device rather than the GPU module itself. The thermal design power is 35 W, less than half the 75 W of the A380E.

The production status differs. The A380E is marked as end-of-life, while the A380M is active. The A380E has a predecessor listed as Xe Graphics and a successor listed as Battlemage. The A380M has no predecessor or successor listed in the database.

The release dates are different. The A380M was released on 2023-01-23, and the A380E was released on 2024-03-31.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference between the Intel Arc A380E and the Intel Arc A380M?

A: The database contains no benchmark scores for either GPU. Both have an average benchmark score of zero and a 50th percentile standing against all GPUs. No measured performance comparison is possible from the recorded data.

Q: Are the two GPUs architecturally identical?

A: Yes. Both use the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. They have the same die size of 157 mm², the same transistor count of 7,200 million, and identical core configurations: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration on each GPU?

A: Both GPUs have 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, with 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1937 MHz, described as 15.5 Gbps effective.

Q: What are the clock speeds of the two GPUs?

A: The boost clock is 2000 MHz on both. The base clock is 2000 MHz on the A380E and 1550 MHz on the A380M. The A380E maintains its peak clock at all times, while the A380M must boost to reach it.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The A380E has a thermal design power of 75 W and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The A380M has a thermal design power of 35 W with no suggested power supply listed. The A380E uses no external power connectors; the A380M's power connector data is not listed.

Q: What are the form factor differences?

A: The A380E is a single-slot card measuring 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The A380M is an MXM module using the MXM-A (3.1) interface, with no listed dimensions and display outputs dependent on the host device.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Arc A380E and the Intel Arc A380M:

• Base clock: 2000 MHz on the A380E, 1550 MHz on the A380M
• Thermal design power: 75 W on the A380E, 35 W on the A380M
• Slot width: Single-slot on the A380E, MXM Module on the A380M
• Power connectors: None on the A380E, not listed on the A380M
• Suggested PSU: 250 W on the A380E, not listed on the A380M
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 on the A380E, MXM-A (3.1) on the A380M
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.0 on the A380E, Portable Device Dependent on the A380M
• Dimensions: 254 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width on the A380E; no dimensions listed on the A380M
• Production status: End-of-life on the A380E, Active on the A380M
• Release date: 2024-03-31 on the A380E, 2023-01-23 on the A380M
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics on the A380E, not listed on the A380M
• Successor: Battlemage on the A380E, not listed on the A380M

All other recorded specifications are identical, including the chip, architecture, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, transistor density, boost clock, memory clock, memory size, memory type, memory bus width, memory bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, and all API support levels.

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs with identical compute resources, memory subsystems, and architectural foundations. The Intel Arc A380E and the Intel Arc A380M are the same silicon with the same core counts, the same clock ceiling, and the same memory configuration. The differences lie entirely in packaging, power, and integration.

The A380E is a desktop-oriented single-slot card with a constant 2000 MHz clock, a 75 W thermal design power, and a 250 W suggested power supply. It is end-of-life, replaced in the product line by Battlemage. Its fixed clock and dedicated power delivery make it suitable for systems where sustained operation at peak frequency is expected.

The A380M is a mobile MXM module with a 35 W thermal design power, a lower 1550 MHz base clock, and a boost clock matching the A380E at 2000 MHz. It remains in active production. Its display outputs depend on the host device, and its power connector requirements are not listed. The lower base clock suggests the A380M is designed to conserve power when peak performance is not required, relying on boost behavior for bursts of activity.

From the recorded data, the A380E offers a higher guaranteed clock and a discrete card form factor with standard display outputs. The A380M offers lower power consumption and a modular form factor for portable systems. Neither GPU has any benchmark results in the database, so no verdict on relative performance can be made. The choice between them depends on the host platform: the A380E fits a standard PCIe slot with its own display ports, while the A380M requires an MXM-A (3.1) socket and provides no direct display outputs of its own.