Intel Arc A380E vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the Intel Arc A380E and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 reveals two fundamentally different products with almost no overlap in purpose. The Arc A380E is an end-of-life, single-slot, power-efficient graphics card designed for embedded or compact systems, while the Data Center GPU Max 1100 is an active, dual-slot, high-compute accelerator built for data center workloads. The recorded data shows no head-to-head benchmark wins for either product, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. Consequently, the choice depends entirely on the workload: the Arc A380E suits display-output and low-power tasks, while the Max 1100 targets massive parallel compute with no display capability. For any user requiring a monitor output, the Arc A380E is the only option. For pure compute throughput, the Max 1100 dominates in raw specifications, but without benchmark scores, the performance advantage remains theoretical. The Max 1100 also carries a 300 W TDP and requires a 700 W suggested PSU, whereas the Arc A380E uses 75 W and a 250 W suggested PSU, making the latter far easier to integrate into small form factors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip based 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 packed into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². In contrast, the Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip based on Generation 12.5 architecture, from the Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) generation. It is built on Intel's 10 nm process, with 100,000 million transistors spread across a 1,280 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². The Max 1100's transistor count is roughly 14 times higher, and its die area is over eight times larger, reflecting its role as a massive compute accelerator.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Arc A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Max 1100 packs 48 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8,192-bit bus, achieving 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth, which is over six times higher. Clock speeds also differ: the Arc A380E runs at a flat 2000 MHz base and boost, while the Max 1100 has a 1000 MHz base and a 1550 MHz boost. The Arc A380E's memory clock is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), whereas the Max 1100's memory clock is 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective), but the vastly wider bus on the Max 1100 compensates for the lower clock.

Compute resources show the Max 1100's scale. It has 7,168 shading units, 448 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 56 ray tracing cores. The Arc A380E has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The Max 1100 also supports FP32 and FP16 at 22.22 TFLOPS each (1:1 ratio), while the Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The Max 1100 has no pixel rate (0 MPixel/s) because it has no ROPs, confirming it cannot output to displays. The Arc A380E offers a 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and a 128.0 GTexel/s texture rate, while the Max 1100 reaches 694.4 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A380E wins decisively in any scenario requiring display output. It provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Max 1100 has no display outputs, supports only DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. For embedded systems, digital signage, or compact workstations that need graphics acceleration and monitor connectivity, the Arc A380E is the only viable choice. Its single-slot design, 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width, along with no power connectors, make it easy to install in constrained chassis. Its 75 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU further simplify power delivery.

The Max 1100 wins in raw compute density and memory capacity. Its 48 GB HBM2e memory with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the Arc A380E's 6 GB GDDR6 at 186.0 GB/s. The Max 1100's FP32 throughput of 22.22 TFLOPS is more than five times the Arc A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance is also 22.22 TFLOPS, compared to 8.192 TFLOPS on the Arc A380E. The Max 1100's 7,168 shading units and 448 TMUs provide massive parallel processing capability, suited for data center workloads like AI inference, scientific simulation, or high-performance computing. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface offers double the bandwidth of the Arc A380E's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection, reducing data transfer bottlenecks.

The Max 1100 also has a much higher transistor density (78.1M per mm² vs. 45.9M per mm²) despite using a larger process node, suggesting a more complex design. Its 300 W TDP and 700 W suggested PSU reflect its performance ceiling, but this comes at the cost of requiring a dual-slot form factor and a 1x 12-pin power connector. The Arc A380E, being end-of-life, has a successor (Battlemage), while the Max 1100's successor is listed as H3C Graphics, indicating ongoing development in both lines.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU supports display output?

A: The Intel Arc A380E provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any task requiring a monitor connection.

Q: How do their memory capacities and bandwidths compare?

A: The Arc A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 96-bit bus. The Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e memory with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth on an 8,192-bit bus, offering roughly eight times the capacity and over six times the bandwidth.

Q: What are their power requirements?

A: The Arc A380E has a 75 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W, with no power connectors needed. The Max 1100 has a 300 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 700 W, requiring a 1x 12-pin power connector.

Q: Which GPU has higher compute throughput?

A: The Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The Max 1100 is over five times faster in FP32.

Q: Are there differences in API support?

A: The Arc A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Max 1100 supports only DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The Arc A380E is single-slot, 254 mm long, 127 mm high, and 20 mm wide. The Max 1100 is dual-slot and 267 mm long, with no height or width dimensions recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark records for these two GPUs, and neither product has individual benchmark scores or nearest rival comparisons. The wins counter for both products sits at zero. This absence of empirical performance data means all comparisons must rely on the recorded specifications. The most striking difference is in FP32 throughput: the Max 1100's 22.22 TFLOPS is 5.42 times the Arc A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS. In FP16, the Max 1100's 22.22 TFLOPS is 2.71 times the Arc A380E's 8.192 TFLOPS. The texture rate on the Max 1100 (694.4 GTexel/s) is 5.43 times higher than the Arc A380E's 128.0 GTexel/s.

Memory bandwidth provides another clear separation: the Max 1100's 1.23 TB/s is 6.61 times the Arc A380E's 186.0 GB/s. The memory bus width difference is even more extreme, with the Max 1100 using an 8,192-bit interface versus the Arc A380E's 96-bit interface, a ratio of 85.33 times. However, the Max 1100 has zero pixel rate (0 MPixel/s) due to no ROPs, while the Arc A380E achieves 64.00 GPixel/s. This confirms the Max 1100 cannot rasterize for display purposes, while the Arc A380E handles traditional graphics rendering.

Shading unit count also favors the Max 1100: 7,168 versus 1,024, a 7.0 times difference. Ray tracing cores follow the same pattern, with the Max 1100 having 56 versus the Arc A380E's 8, a 7.0 times difference. The TMU count is 448 on the Max 1100 versus 64 on the Arc A380E, also a 7.0 times difference. These ratios are consistent with the shading unit scaling, indicating the Max 1100 is designed for massively parallel workloads, not graphics output.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification, reflecting their divergent target markets. The Arc A380E uses a 6 nm TSMC process, while the Max 1100 uses Intel's 10 nm process. Transistor counts are 7,200 million versus 100,000 million, with die sizes of 157 mm² versus 1,280 mm². Transistor density is 45.9M per mm² on the Arc A380E and 78.1M per mm² on the Max 1100.

Base clocks are 2000 MHz on the Arc A380E and 1000 MHz on the Max 1100, while boost clocks are 2000 MHz and 1550 MHz, respectively. Memory clocks are 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) on the Arc A380E and 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective) on the Max 1100. Memory size is 6 GB GDDR6 versus 48 GB HBM2e, with bus widths of 96 bit and 8,192 bit. Bandwidth is 186.0 GB/s versus 1.23 TB/s.

The Arc A380E has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The Max 1100 has 7,168 shading units, 448 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 56 RT cores. Pixel rates are 64.00 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. Texture rates are 128.0 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.096 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 22.22 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power requirements differ sharply: 75 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU on the Arc A380E, versus 300 W TDP and 700 W suggested PSU on the Max 1100. The Arc A380E is single-slot with no power connectors, while the Max 1100 is dual-slot with a 1x 12-pin connector. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.0 on the Arc A380E and none on the Max 1100.

API support shows the Arc A380E with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Max 1100 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and lacks Vulkan. Physical dimensions are 254 mm x 127 mm x 20 mm for the Arc A380E, while the Max 1100 measures 267 mm in length with no recorded height or width. Production status is end-of-life for the Arc A380E, released on 2024-03-31, with a successor of Battlemage. The Max 1100 remains active, released on 2023-01-09, with a successor of H3C Graphics. Neither product has a launch MSRP recorded.