Intel Arc A380E vs Intel Arc Pro A60M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc A380E or the Intel Arc Pro A60M. The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries, no individual benchmark results, and no win counts for either product. Both GPUs hold a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero for each. This absence of measured performance data means the comparison must rely entirely on the recorded architectural and specification differences between the two parts.

What the data does provide is a clear structural contrast. The Arc A380E is built on the DG2-128 chip, while the Arc Pro A60M uses the DG2-256 chip. That difference in chip designation carries substantial implications: the DG2-256 die contains 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, whereas the DG2-128 contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The larger chip in the Arc Pro A60M delivers more of nearly every compute resource. Shading units double from 1,024 to 2,048. Texture mapping units double from 64 to 128. Render output units double from 32 to 64. Ray tracing cores double from 8 to 16. The FP32 throughput rises from 4.096 TFLOPS to 5.325 TFLOPS, and FP16 throughput rises from 8.192 TFLOPS to 10.65 TFLOPS. Pixel rate climbs from 64.00 GPixel/s to 83.20 GPixel/s, and texture rate climbs from 128.0 GTexel/s to 166.4 GTexel/s.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also favor the Arc Pro A60M. It carries 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A380E carries 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s. The A60M also runs its memory at a higher effective speed, 16 Gbps versus 15.5 Gbps. In every raw throughput category recorded, the Arc Pro A60M leads by a margin between roughly 30% and 100%.

The Arc A380E does hold advantages in clock speed. Its base and boost clocks are both 2000 MHz, while the Arc Pro A60M operates at a 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. That is a 700 MHz gap at base and a 700 MHz gap at boost. Despite this, the A60M's greater resource count overcomes the clock deficit. The data shows the A380E's texture rate, for example, is 128.0 GTexel/s at 2000 MHz across 64 TMUs, while the A60M achieves 166.4 GTexel/s at 1300 MHz across 128 TMUs. The A60M's pixel rate is 83.20 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the A380E, again despite the A380E's higher clocks. The architectural scaling is decisive.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict: the Intel Arc Pro A60M is the stronger GPU in every measured compute and memory category. Its FP32 throughput is 5.325 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the Arc A380E, a 30% lead. Its memory bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, a 37.6% lead. Its texture rate is 166.4 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, a 30% lead. Its pixel rate is 83.20 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, a 30% lead. Its ray tracing core count is double, and its shading unit count is double. The Arc Pro A60M is also the active product in the database, while the Arc A380E is marked end-of-life.

The Arc A380E is not without its own merits. It runs at a 2000 MHz base and boost clock, far above the A60M's 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. It has a lower TDP at 75 W versus 95 W, and it requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. It is a single-slot card with a 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width, and it offers four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The A60M, by contrast, is an integrated GPU (IGP) with portable-device-dependent display outputs and no listed dimensions. For a desktop workload where a discrete card is required, the A380E is the only option in this pair. For raw performance, the A60M is the clear leader.

The production status difference also matters. The A380E is end-of-life with a release date in 2024 and a successor listed as Battlemage. The A60M is active, released in 2023, with no predecessor or successor listed. The database shows the A60M as the current, supported part. The A380E is a legacy offering.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Xe-HPG architecture and belong to the Alchemist generation, but they diverge in chip implementation. The Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Arc Pro A60M uses the DG2-256 chip, also on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The transistor counts differ substantially: 7,200 million for the DG2-128 versus 11,500 million for the DG2-256. Die size scales accordingly, 157 mm² versus 269 mm². Transistor density is slightly higher on the smaller chip, 45.9M per mm² versus 42.8M per mm², but the larger die still contains 60% more transistors.

The compute architecture scales with the die. The A60M doubles the shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores relative to the A380E. Both parts lack tensor cores in the recorded data. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The memory subsystem also scales: 96-bit bus and 6 GB for the A380E, 128-bit bus and 8 GB for the A60M. The A60M's memory clock is listed at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the A380E's memory clock is 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective.

The A380E's generation entry is "Alchemist (Arc 3)", indicating its position in the Arc 3 tier. The A60M's generation entry is "Alchemist (Pro-Series Mobile)", indicating a professional mobile focus. The A380E is a desktop discrete card with explicit dimensions and a single-slot form factor. The A60M is an integrated GPU with no dimensions, designed for portable devices. These are different product categories sharing a common architecture.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts, based solely on the recorded data:

• Chip: DG2-128 for the A380E, DG2-256 for the A60M.
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 3) for the A380E, Alchemist (Pro-Series Mobile) for the A60M.
• Transistors: 7,200 million versus 11,500 million.
• Die size: 157 mm² versus 269 mm².
• Transistor density: 45.9M per mm² versus 42.8M per mm².
• Base clock: 2000 MHz versus 900 MHz.
• Boost clock: 2000 MHz versus 1300 MHz.
• Memory clock: 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective versus 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective.
• Memory size: 6 GB versus 8 GB.
• Memory bus width: 96-bit versus 128-bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.
• Shading units: 1,024 versus 2,048.
• TMUs: 64 versus 128.
• ROPs: 32 versus 64.
• Ray tracing cores: 8 versus 16.
• Pixel rate: 64.00 GPixel/s versus 83.20 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 128.0 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 4.096 TFLOPS versus 5.325 TFLOPS.
• FP16: 8.192 TFLOPS versus 10.65 TFLOPS.
• TDP: 75 W versus 95 W.
• Slot width: Single-slot versus IGP.
• Power connectors: None versus null.
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus null.
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16.
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.0 versus Portable Device Dependent.
• Dimensions: 254 mm x 127 mm x 20 mm versus null.
• Production status: End-of-life versus Active.
• Release date: 2024-03-31 versus 2023-06-05.
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics versus null.
• Successor: Battlemage versus null.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32. The A60M leads by roughly 30%.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Arc Pro A60M provides 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6. The Arc A380E provides 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which GPU is a discrete desktop card?

A: The Arc A380E is a single-slot card with dimensions of 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width. The Arc Pro A60M is an integrated GPU with no listed dimensions.

Q: What is the production status of each?

A: The Arc A380E is end-of-life. The Arc Pro A60M is active.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

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

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Arc Pro A60M has 16 ray tracing cores. The Arc A380E has 8.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc Pro A60M wins in every raw performance category recorded. It has double the shading units, double the texture mapping units, double the render output units, and double the ray tracing cores. Its FP32 throughput is 5.325 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS, its FP16 throughput is 10.65 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS, its pixel rate is 83.20 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 166.4 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, with 8 GB versus 6 GB of capacity. It also uses a wider PCIe interface at x16 versus x8. The A60M is the active product in the database.

The Arc A380E wins in clock speed, power draw, and physical integration. Its base and boost clocks are both 2000 MHz, compared to 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost for the A60M. Its TDP is 75 W versus 95 W, and it requires no power connectors with a 250 W suggested PSU. It is a single-slot discrete card with four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the A60M has no discrete form factor and relies on portable-device-dependent outputs. The A380E also has a slightly higher transistor density, 45.9M per mm² versus 42.8M per mm², though this does not compensate for the A60M's larger transistor count.

For workloads that demand maximum compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and capacity, the Arc Pro A60M is the data-backed choice. For a desktop system requiring a discrete, low-power, single-slot GPU with DisplayPort outputs, the Arc A380E is the only option that fits that physical form factor. The database shows no benchmark results, so all conclusions here rest on the recorded specifications and production status.