Intel Arc A380E vs Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc A380E or the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile. Without measured performance results, the comparison rests entirely on the architectural and specification differences documented in the database. The absence of benchmark data means no head-to-head wins can be assigned to either product, and the wins counter for both remains at zero.

The Intel Arc A380E shows a peak FP32 throughput of 4.096 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS. That represents a 7.0x advantage for the A380E in raw single-precision compute. The difference in texture rate is even more pronounced: the A380E reaches 128.0 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s for the mobile part, a 7.0x margin. Pixel fill rates follow the same pattern, with the A380E at 64.00 GPixel/s compared to 9.200 GPixel/s, a 7.0x gap.

The A380E also holds a substantial lead in shading resources. It integrates 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The mobile part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. That is exactly an 8.0x difference in each category. The ray tracing hardware tells a similar story: the A380E has 8 RT cores versus 1 RT core in the mobile chip, an 8.0x advantage.

Clock behavior differs in ways that partially offset the architectural gap. The A380E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost, with no game clock listed. The mobile part has a 300 MHz base clock but boosts to 2300 MHz, which is 15% higher than the A380E boost. That higher boost clock helps the smaller chip, but it cannot close the massive gap in execution resources.

The memory subsystem creates another divide. The A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The mobile GPU relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent and no dedicated VRAM size or bus width. This means the A380E has a fixed, dedicated memory pipeline, while the mobile part must contend with system memory latency and allocation.

Power consumption reflects the intended use cases. The A380E has a 75 W TDP, while the mobile GPU is rated at 25 W. That is a 3.0x difference in power draw, which explains the A380E's higher performance ceiling but also its larger physical footprint and dedicated slot requirement.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc A380E reaches 4.096 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS FP32. The A380E is 7.0x faster in this metric.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The A380E has 6 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The mobile GPU uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, no fixed size, and no dedicated bus width.

Q: Are the API feature sets identical?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API compatibility is the same, though the hardware capabilities behind those APIs differ significantly.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The A380E has a 75 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The mobile GPU has a 25 W TDP and no PSU requirement listed, as it is an integrated graphics processor.

Q: Which chip uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, while the Intel Arc A380E uses a 6 nm process at TSMC. The smaller node is a key factor in the mobile chip's lower power draw.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The A380E is a single-slot discrete card measuring 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The mobile GPU is an IGP with no dimensions listed and display outputs dependent on the portable device.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different manufacturing nodes. The Intel Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of 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 Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, from the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. The transistor density is not recorded.

The Xe-HPG architecture in the A380E is designed for discrete graphics workloads, as evidenced by its dedicated GDDR6 memory interface and PCIe 4.0 x8 bus connection. The Xe3-LPG architecture in the mobile part is built for integration, using system shared memory and an IGP bus interface. The A380E also has a dedicated predecessor (Xe Graphics) and successor (Battlemage), while the mobile chip lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor and has no successor recorded.

Ray tracing support exists on both, but the scale differs. The A380E has 8 RT cores, allowing for dedicated hardware acceleration of ray-traced effects. The mobile part has just 1 RT core, which provides the capability but at a fraction of the throughput. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so feature-level API support is consistent.

The production status also differs. The A380E is marked as end-of-life, while the mobile GPU is active. The release dates place the A380E at 2024-03-31 and the mobile part at 2026-04-15, indicating the mobile chip is a newer product in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The A380E has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, with a 1937 MHz memory clock (15.5 Gbps effective). The mobile part has a 300 MHz base clock and a 2300 MHz boost clock, with system shared memory clock.

Memory specifications are entirely different. The A380E carries 6 GB of GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The mobile GPU lists system shared for size, type, bus width, and system dependent for bandwidth.

Compute resources show an 8.0x difference in shading units (1024 vs 128), TMUs (64 vs 8), and ROPs (32 vs 4). The RT core count is 8 vs 1. Pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s vs 9.200 GPixel/s, texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s vs 18.40 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 4.096 TFLOPS vs 588.8 GFLOPS. FP16 output is 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 1,177.6 GFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The A380E has a 75 W TDP, is single-slot, uses no power connectors, and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The mobile part has a 25 W TDP, is an IGP, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The A380E connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the mobile GPU uses an IGP bus interface. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.0 for the A380E versus portable device dependent for the mobile chip.

The A380E has recorded dimensions of 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width. The mobile GPU has no dimensions listed. The A380E uses 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die at 6 nm TSMC. The mobile part has unknown transistor count and die size at 3 nm Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380E wins in every performance-oriented category in the recorded data. Its 7.0x advantage in FP32 throughput, texture rate, and pixel rate makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks. The 6 GB dedicated GDDR6 memory with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable memory performance that the system shared memory of the mobile part cannot guarantee. The 8 RT cores give it substantially more ray tracing capacity than the single RT core in the mobile chip. The 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs support multi-display configurations without adapter dependencies.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is one-third of the A380E's 75 W TDP. It is built on a newer 3 nm process at Intel, which contributes to the lower power draw. The IGP form factor means no separate card, no power connectors, and no slot occupancy. Its higher boost clock of 2300 MHz versus the A380E's fixed 2000 MHz shows the mobile chip can scale up its clock when thermal and power budgets allow, though this does not overcome the resource deficit.

The mobile part is also newer in the database, with a 2026-04-15 release date versus 2024-03-31 for the A380E. Its production status is active, while the A380E is end-of-life. For portable devices where power draw and physical space are constraints, the mobile GPU is the only viable option between the two.

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs with opposite design philosophies. The Intel Arc A380E is a discrete, end-of-life product built for sustained performance with dedicated memory and a fixed power envelope. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is an active, integrated part built for low power consumption and portability at the cost of raw throughput.

For workloads that demand maximum compute, the A380E is the clear choice. Its 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 output, 186.0 GB/s dedicated bandwidth, and 8 RT cores provide capabilities the mobile chip cannot approach. The 7.0x advantage in fill rates and compute throughput means any rendering or compute task will complete significantly faster on the A380E. The 75 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU indicate a system designed to supply consistent power to the GPU.

For systems where power efficiency and integration are priorities, the mobile GPU fits that profile. Its 25 W TDP allows it to operate in thin and light portable devices without a dedicated power supply. The 3 nm process at Intel shows a newer manufacturing approach, and the active production status means it is currently available in the database. The 2300 MHz boost clock demonstrates the chip can reach higher frequencies than the A380E's fixed 2000 MHz, even if the execution resources are far smaller.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. The A380E is for discrete graphics workloads requiring dedicated memory and high throughput. The mobile GPU is for integrated graphics in portable devices where the 25 W power budget and IGP form factor are essential. There is no overlap in the data that would make one a substitute for the other.