Intel Arc A380E vs Intel Arc G3 Extreme Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc A380E and the Intel Arc G3 Extreme. Both entries show zero benchmark scores, zero wins for either side, and no nearest rival data. This means a numerical comparison of measured performance cannot be constructed from the available facts.

What can be established from the specification data is a theoretical compute comparison. The Arc G3 Extreme delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That places the G3 Extreme approximately 87.5% ahead in raw single-precision compute. In FP16, the G3 Extreme reaches 15.36 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS for the A380E, again a 87.5% advantage. These figures represent peak theoretical rates, not application-level results, but they do indicate a substantial compute gap.

Pixel and texture throughput tell a different story. The A380E achieves 64.00 GPixel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s. The G3 Extreme achieves 60.00 GPixel/s and 120.0 GTexel/s. Here the A380E leads by 6.7% in pixel rate and by 6.7% in texture rate. Despite having fewer shading units, the A380E’s higher base clock of 2000 MHz compared to the G3 Extreme’s 300 MHz base clock contributes to this fill-rate advantage. The G3 Extreme’s boost clock of 2500 MHz exceeds the A380E’s fixed 2000 MHz, but its base clock is dramatically lower.

Neither GPU has recorded benchmark scores, so the percentile versus all GPUs is identical at 50 for both. The average benchmark score for each is 0. Without measured data, any head-to-head statement must rely on architectural and theoretical parameters rather than observed performance.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The Intel Arc G3 Extreme uses the Panther Lake chip built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown.

The process node difference is significant: 6 nm versus 3 nm. This represents a full generation jump in manufacturing technology, with the G3 Extreme using Intel’s own foundry while the A380E relies on TSMC. The A380E’s transistor count is known at 7,200 million, while the G3 Extreme’s is not recorded.

The A380E is a discrete GPU with a single-slot form factor, 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The G3 Extreme is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), meaning it has no slot width, no dimensions, no power connectors, and uses the IGP bus interface. Its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, whereas the A380E provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The A380E has 6 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth and memory clocks of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The G3 Extreme uses system shared memory, with system shared type, bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. This is the most consequential architectural difference: dedicated VRAM versus shared system memory.

Shader resources also differ. The A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The G3 Extreme has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The G3 Extreme has 50% more shading units and 50% more ray tracing cores, but the A380E has 33.3% more TMUs and 33.3% more ROPs.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A380E is end-of-life with a release date of 2024-03-31, while the G3 Extreme is active with a release date of 2026-05-31. The A380E lists Xe Graphics as predecessor and Battlemage as successor; the G3 Extreme lists neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc G3 Extreme delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, compared to 4.096 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc A380E. The G3 Extreme leads by approximately 87.5% in this metric.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc A380E achieves 64.00 GPixel/s, while the Intel Arc G3 Extreme achieves 60.00 GPixel/s. The A380E leads by approximately 6.7% in pixel throughput.

Q: Do these GPUs use the same memory configuration?

A: No. The A380E uses 6 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The G3 Extreme uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. This is a fundamental difference in memory architecture.

Q: What are the manufacturing process nodes for each GPU?

A: The A380E uses a 6 nm process at TSMC. The G3 Extreme uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The G3 Extreme’s process node is one full generation smaller.

Q: Are these GPUs the same physical form factor?

A: No. The A380E is a discrete single-slot card measuring 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm, using a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The G3 Extreme is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no slot width, dimensions, or bus interface beyond IGP itself.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc G3 Extreme has 1536 shading units. The Intel Arc A380E has 1024 shading units. The G3 Extreme has 50% more shading units than the A380E.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Arc A380E and the Intel Arc G3 Extreme:

• Chip: DG2-128 versus Panther Lake
• Architecture: Xe-HPG versus Xe3-LPG
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 3) versus Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake)
• Process Node: 6 nm versus 3 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 7,200 million versus unknown
• Die Size: 157 mm² versus unknown
• Transistor Density: 45.9M / mm² versus null
• Base Clock: 2000 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2000 MHz versus 2500 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective versus system shared
• Memory Size: 6 GB versus system shared
• Memory Type: GDDR6 versus system shared
• Memory Bus Width: 96 bit versus system shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s versus system dependent
• Shading Units: 1024 versus 1536
• TMUs: 64 versus 48
• ROPs: 32 versus 24
• Ray Tracing Cores: 8 versus 12
• Pixel Rate: 64.00 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 128.0 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 4.096 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 75 W versus 80 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus IGP
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus IGP
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.0 versus portable device dependent
• Dimensions: 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm versus null
• Production Status: End-of-life versus active
• Release Date: 2024-03-31 versus 2026-05-31
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics versus null
• Successor: Battlemage versus null

Fields that are identical include the manufacturer (Intel), the absence of tensor cores (null for both), DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and the lack of power connectors (none for both).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380E wins in several specification categories. It has a significantly higher base clock at 2000 MHz versus 300 MHz. It has more texture mapping units (64 versus 48) and more render output units (32 versus 24). It achieves higher pixel rate (64.00 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s) and higher texture rate (128.0 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s). It uses dedicated GDDR6 memory with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is a fixed, known quantity rather than system dependent. It also has a defined physical form factor with single-slot cooling, 254 mm length, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. It provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs for multi-display setups. Its TDP of 75 W is lower than the G3 Extreme’s 80 W, and it has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The Intel Arc G3 Extreme wins in other categories. It has more shading units at 1536 versus 1024, giving it 50% more compute cores. It has more ray tracing cores at 12 versus 8. Its FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS is 87.5% higher, and its FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS is likewise 87.5% higher. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz exceeds the A380E’s 2000 MHz. It uses a smaller 3 nm process node compared to the 6 nm node. It is an active product with a later release date, while the A380E is end-of-life. As an IGP, it requires no separate card, no power connectors, and no PSU recommendation, which suits compact portable devices.

The A380E is better suited for systems that require a discrete, dedicated GPU with fixed memory bandwidth, multi-display output via DisplayPort 2.0, and predictable fill-rate performance. The G3 Extreme is better suited for portable devices where integrated graphics with high compute throughput and ray tracing capability are desired, and where shared system memory is acceptable.

The Verdict

The data shows two fundamentally different products. The Intel Arc A380E is a discrete, end-of-life GPU from the Alchemist generation, built on TSMC’s 6 nm process, with dedicated 6 GB GDDR6 memory, 186.0 GB/s bandwidth, and a fixed 2000 MHz clock. Its strengths are fill rate, texture throughput, and a known memory subsystem. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme is an active integrated GPU from the Panther Lake generation, built on Intel’s 3 nm process, with 1536 shading units, 12 ray tracing cores, and 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 compute. Its strengths are compute throughput, ray tracing capability, and process efficiency.

For workloads that depend on pixel and texture throughput, such as certain rendering pipelines, the A380E holds a 6.7% lead in both pixel rate and texture rate. For workloads that depend on raw shader compute, the G3 Extreme leads by 87.5% in FP32 and FP16. The G3 Extreme also has 50% more shading units and 50% more ray tracing cores.

The choice between them depends on the deployment context. A discrete desktop or workstation setup with dedicated display outputs and fixed memory bandwidth points toward the A380E. A portable or integrated system that leverages shared system memory and needs maximum compute per integrated solution points toward the G3 Extreme. The A380E’s end-of-life status and the G3 Extreme’s active status further reinforce that the G3 Extreme is the forward-looking option, while the A380E represents a mature, finalized product. Benchmark results are absent from the database, so these conclusions rest on architectural specifications and theoretical peak rates rather than measured application performance.