Intel Arc A380E vs Intel Arc G3 Comparison

The Intel Arc A380E and Intel Arc G3 represent two distinct approaches within Intel’s graphics portfolio, separated by architecture generation, process technology, and intended deployment. The database records show the A380E as an end-of-life discrete add-in board built on the Xe-HPG architecture, while the G3 is an active integrated graphics processor using the newer Xe3-LPG architecture on Intel’s 3 nm process. Despite the G3’s higher raw FP32 throughput, the two parts target fundamentally different physical and power envelopes, which shapes every benchmark and specification comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc G3 leads with 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. The G3 holds a 50% advantage in raw single-precision compute.

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two GPUs?

A: The A380E uses 6 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, providing 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The G3 uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The Arc G3 has 1280 shading units and 10 ray tracing cores. The Arc A380E has 1024 shading units and 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The A380E has a 75 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 250 W, while the G3 is an integrated GPU with a 25 W TDP and no separate power supply requirement. The G3 consumes one-third the power of the A380E.

Q: What process nodes are used for each chip?

A: The A380E uses TSMC’s 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The Arc G3 uses Intel’s 3 nm process, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different Intel architecture families. The Arc A380E is based on the Xe-HPG architecture under the DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist generation within the Arc 3 segment. The Arc G3 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Panther Lake chip, classified under Arc Graphics-M for Panther Lake. This architectural split carries major implications: the A380E is a discrete solution, while the G3 is an integrated graphics processor, indicated by its IGP slot width and bus interface.

Manufacturing processes differ sharply. The A380E is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors and a die size of 157 mm². Transistor density computes to 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The G3 is fabricated on Intel’s 3 nm process, with transistor count and die size marked as unknown in the database. The process node advantage for the G3 aligns with its much lower 25 W TDP.

Clock behavior also diverges. The A380E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz base and boost clock, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The G3 has a 300 MHz base clock and a 2400 MHz boost clock, a much wider boost range that suggests aggressive power management typical of integrated parts. Memory clocks for the G3 are not fixed because it uses system shared memory.

The compute pipelines differ in configuration. The A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The G3 has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The G3 therefore has 25% more shading units but 37.5% fewer TMUs and 37.5% fewer ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows the shading unit count: 8 RT cores for the A380E versus 10 for the G3.

Pixel and texture throughput reflect these configurations. The A380E reaches 64.00 GPixel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s. The G3 reaches 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. Although the G3 has higher FP32 and FP16 compute, the A380E retains a 33% advantage in pixel fill rate and a 33% advantage in texture fill rate due to its higher ROP and TMU counts. FP16 rates are 8.192 TFLOPS for the A380E and 12.29 TFLOPS for the G3, both using the 2:1 ratio.

Physical design separates the two further. The A380E is a single-slot, 254 mm long, 127 mm high, and 20 mm wide add-in card with no power connectors, drawing power from the PCIe slot. The G3 has no dimensions listed and is integrated into a portable device, with display outputs dependent on the host device. The A380E provides four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split by deployment class rather than by raw compute. The Intel Arc G3 is the stronger pure compute device, delivering 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS FP16, which is 50% higher than the A380E in both metrics. It also carries more shading units and ray tracing cores. For workloads that scale with shader count and FP32 throughput, the G3 has the mathematical advantage.

However, the A380E wins in memory bandwidth and rasterization throughput. Its 186.0 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth is fixed and independent of system load, whereas the G3 depends entirely on system memory. The A380E’s 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 128.0 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the G3’s 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s, making the discrete card better suited to fill-rate-bound scenes.

The power envelope reinforces this split. The G3 operates at 25 W TDP, one-third of the A380E’s 75 W TDP. The G3 is an integrated processor with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, while the A380E recommends a 250 W power supply. Users with a discrete PCIe slot and a need for dedicated memory should select the A380E. Users constrained to low-power integrated systems should select the G3.

Production status also matters. The A380E is end-of-life, succeeded by Battlemage, while the G3 is active and scheduled for release later. The A380E’s predecessor is Xe Graphics. The G3 has no listed predecessor or successor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A380E | Intel Arc G3 |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Xe3-LPG |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) |

| Process Node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 6 GB GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 96 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 186.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 64 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 20 |

| RT Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Pixel Rate | 64.00 GPixel/s | 48.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 128.0 GTexel/s | 96.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.096 TFLOPS | 6.144 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 25 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.0 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 254 mm x 127 mm x 20 mm | null |

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

| Release Date | 2024-03-31 | 2026-05-31 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | null |

| Successor | Battlemage | null |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores, so the comparison relies on the specification-derived throughput metrics recorded in the database. These metrics function as the measurable performance deltas between the two parts.

The G3 wins decisively in compute throughput. FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS, a 50% advantage. FP16 performance is 12.29 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS, also a 50% advantage. These are the largest percentage deltas in the comparison. The G3 also leads in shading units by 25% (1280 versus 1024) and in ray tracing cores by 25% (10 versus 8).

The A380E wins in rasterization and memory throughput. Pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, a 33% advantage. Texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s, also a 33% advantage. The A380E’s TMU count of 64 versus 40 represents a 60% advantage, and its ROP count of 32 versus 20 is a 60% advantage. Memory bandwidth is 186.0 GB/s versus system dependent, an unquantifiable but structurally significant difference because the A380E’s bandwidth is fixed and dedicated.

Clock behavior favors the G3 at peak. The G3 boosts to 2400 MHz, 20% higher than the A380E’s fixed 2000 MHz. However, the G3’s base clock of 300 MHz is far below the A380E’s 2000 MHz, indicating that sustained performance depends heavily on thermal and power headroom.

Power efficiency favors the G3. Its 25 W TDP produces 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, a ratio of 245.8 GFLOPS per watt. The A380E’s 75 W TDP produces 4.096 TFLOPS, a ratio of 54.6 GFLOPS per watt. The G3 delivers roughly 4.5 times the FP32 throughput per watt.

Physical footprint favors the G3 by integration. The G3 has no dimensions, slot width, or power connectors, while the A380E occupies a single slot at 254 mm length and requires a 250 W suggested power supply. The A380E offers four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs; the G3’s display outputs depend on the portable device.

Where Each One Wins

The G3 wins in compute-bound and power-constrained scenarios. Its 50% higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, combined with more shading units and ray tracing cores, positions it for shader-heavy workloads such as compute processing and ray-traced effects where the 10 RT cores can be utilized. The 25 W TDP allows deployment in integrated, portable systems where the A380E’s 75 W TDP and add-in card form factor would not fit. The G3’s 2400 MHz boost clock also provides higher peak frequency when power delivery allows.

The A380E wins in fill-rate-bound and memory-sensitive scenarios. Its 33% higher pixel rate and 33% higher texture rate, supported by 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs, give it an edge in traditional rasterization tasks that depend on texture sampling and pixel output. The 6 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth removes dependence on system memory, avoiding the variable bandwidth of the G3’s system shared configuration. The A380E’s four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs make it suitable for multi-display setups, while the G3’s outputs are portable device dependent.

The A380E also wins in sustained-clock scenarios. Its base and boost clocks are identical at 2000 MHz, meaning no boost variance under load. The G3’s 300 MHz base clock creates a wide performance range, suggesting that sustained workloads could drop well below its 2400 MHz peak.

Both GPUs share identical API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so software compatibility does not differentiate them. The production timeline does: the A380E is end-of-life with Battlemage as its successor, while the G3 is active with a future release date. The database shows no head-to-head benchmark wins for either part, so the recorded victory conditions are purely the throughput and specification deltas listed above.