Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q Comparison

Intel Arc A380E and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q occupy different positions in the mobile and compact graphics landscape, with the former built on Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture and the latter on NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace design. The recorded data shows that both cards share a 6 GB GDDR6 memory configuration with a 96-bit memory bus, but their compute capabilities, power envelopes, and physical designs diverge substantially. The Arc A380E is a single-slot, 75 W part with a fixed 2000 MHz boost clock, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q is an integrated, 35 W mobile solution with a 1605 MHz boost clock. Benchmark results from the database indicate that the RTX 4050 Max-Q holds a decisive advantage in raw throughput, but the Arc A380E offers specific architectural traits that matter for particular workloads.

FAQ

Q: What are the primary architectural differences between the Intel Arc A380E and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q?

A: The Arc A380E uses Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process with a DG2-128 chip, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q uses NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process with an AD107 chip. The Arc A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores, whereas the RTX 4050 Max-Q has 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 20 ray tracing cores, and 80 tensor cores.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Arc A380E provides 186.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q provides 192.0 GB/s. Both use 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, with the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s memory clocked at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus the Arc A380E’s 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 4050 Max-Q delivers 8.218 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is exactly double the Arc A380E’s 4.096 TFLOPS. The RTX 4050 Max-Q also matches its FP32 figure for FP16 at 8.218 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Arc A380E reaches 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 via a 2:1 ratio.

Q: What are the power consumption and physical form factors?

A: The Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W and is a single-slot card measuring 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with no power connectors and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The RTX 4050 Max-Q has a TDP of 35 W, is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), and has no listed dimensions or power connector requirements.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RTX 4050 Max-Q achieves 77.04 GPixel/s, while the Arc A380E achieves 64.00 GPixel/s. The RTX 4050 Max-Q’s advantage comes from its higher ROP count (48 versus 32) and its boost clock, despite the Arc A380E’s higher base clock.

Q: What are the production statuses and release timelines?

A: The Arc A380E is marked as end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage. The RTX 4050 Max-Q is active, released on 2023-01-02, with a predecessor of GeForce 30 Mobile and a successor of GeForce 50 Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4050 Max-Q wins decisively in compute-heavy tasks. Its FP32 output of 8.218 TFLOPS is exactly 100% higher than the Arc A380E’s 4.096 TFLOPS, meaning the NVIDIA part processes twice as many floating-point operations per second. This advantage extends to texture processing, where the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s 128.4 GTexel/s slightly edges out the Arc A380E’s 128.0 GTexel/s, and to pixel throughput, with 77.04 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s. The RTX 4050 Max-Q also has 80 tensor cores, which the Arc A380E lacks entirely, making the NVIDIA GPU the only one of the two capable of hardware-accelerated tensor operations.

The Arc A380E wins in power efficiency per watt and in raw clock speed. Its base and boost clocks are identical at 2000 MHz, compared to the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s 1140 MHz base and 1605 MHz boost. This higher clock rate allows the Arc A380E to sustain a consistent frequency without relying on dynamic boost behavior. The Arc A380E also has a higher transistor density at 45.9M per mm² on a 157 mm² die, although this is a smaller die than the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s 159 mm². For compact desktop systems, the Arc A380E’s fixed single-slot design with four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs provides a deterministic physical footprint, whereas the RTX 4050 Max-Q is portable-device dependent for its display outputs.

In memory bandwidth, the RTX 4050 Max-Q leads with 192.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, a 3.2% advantage that matters in memory-bound scenarios. However, the Arc A380E’s lower power draw of 75 W versus 35 W does not translate into a performance win; the RTX 4050 Max-Q consumes less than half the power while delivering double the FP32 throughput. The Arc A380E’s only clear wins are its higher clock speeds and its standalone card form factor, which suits fixed installations. For any workload that scales with shading units, ray tracing cores, or tensor cores, the RTX 4050 Max-Q is the superior choice.

Architecture Differences

The Arc A380E is built on Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The RTX 4050 Max-Q uses NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD107 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die, achieving a density of 118.9M per mm². The RTX 4050 Max-Q’s transistor count is 2.6 times higher than the Arc A380E’s, and its density is more than double, indicating a much more compact logic design.

The compute unit configurations differ sharply. The Arc A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 4050 Max-Q has 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The RTX 4050 Max-Q’s shading unit count is 2.5 times higher, its TMU count is 25% higher, and its ROP count is 50% higher. The ray tracing core count is 2.5 times higher, and the presence of tensor cores gives the NVIDIA part a dedicated hardware path for AI and deep learning workloads.

Clock behavior also reflects architectural priorities. The Arc A380E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, which simplifies power delivery but caps its theoretical peak. The RTX 4050 Max-Q runs at 1140 MHz base and 1605 MHz boost, a lower absolute frequency but compensated by its massive parallelism. The FP16 output shows a key difference: the Arc A380E achieves 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 using a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q achieves 8.218 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning the NVIDIA GPU does not rely on reduced precision for its FP16 throughput.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level compatibility is identical. The process node difference, 6 nm versus 5 nm, contributes to the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s lower power envelope of 35 W versus 75 W, despite its larger transistor count. The Arc A380E’s die size is slightly smaller at 157 mm² versus 159 mm², but the NVIDIA chip fits nearly three times as many transistors into that space.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems are nearly identical: both use 6 GB of GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus. The effective memory clock differs, with the Arc A380E at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) and the RTX 4050 Max-Q at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). This results in a bandwidth difference of 186.0 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s, a 6 GB/s gap.

The power specifications diverge significantly. The Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W, requires no power connectors, and lists a suggested power supply of 250 W. The RTX 4050 Max-Q has a TDP of 35 W, also requires no power connectors, and has no suggested power supply figure listed. The Arc A380E is a single-slot card with explicit dimensions of 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width. The RTX 4050 Max-Q is classified as an IGP with no dimensions recorded.

The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for both, so data transfer to the host system is identical. Display outputs differ: the Arc A380E features four DisplayPort 2.0 connectors, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop or mobile platform implementation.

The production statuses are opposite: the Arc A380E is end-of-life, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q is active. Release dates show the RTX 4050 Max-Q launched earlier on 2023-01-02, with the Arc A380E following on 2024-03-31. The predecessor and successor chains also differ, with the Arc A380E succeeding Xe Graphics and leading to Battlemage, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q succeeds GeForce 30 Mobile and leads to GeForce 50 Mobile.

Pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 figures all favor the RTX 4050 Max-Q, as noted. The Arc A380E’s FP32 is 4.096 TFLOPS, its texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s. The RTX 4050 Max-Q’s FP32 is 8.218 TFLOPS, its texture rate is 128.4 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 77.04 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries, but the specification-derived performance metrics provide a clear comparison. The RTX 4050 Max-Q’s FP32 output of 8.218 TFLOPS is exactly 100% higher than the Arc A380E’s 4.096 TFLOPS. This is the largest single metric gap between the two, doubling the compute throughput for general-purpose shading workloads.

In FP16 performance, the RTX 4050 Max-Q achieves 8.218 TFLOPS, while the Arc A380E reaches 8.192 TFLOPS. The difference is only 0.026 TFLOPS (roughly 0.3%), making this the closest benchmark comparison. The RTX 4050 Max-Q’s 1:1 FP16 ratio means it maintains full throughput without precision conversion, while the Arc A380E’s 2:1 ratio implies it halves FP32 resources for FP16, yet the final numbers are nearly equivalent.

The pixel fill rate favors the RTX 4050 Max-Q by 77.04 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, a margin of 13.04 GPixel/s or roughly 20.4%. This aligns with the ROP count difference of 48 versus 32. The texture fill rate is nearly identical, with the RTX 4050 Max-Q at 128.4 GTexel/s and the Arc A380E at 128.0 GTexel/s, a margin of only 0.4 GTexel/s (0.3%). This near-tie occurs despite the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s higher TMU count of 80 versus 64, because the Arc A380E’s higher clock of 2000 MHz compensates for its fewer TMUs.

Memory bandwidth shows a modest advantage for the RTX 4050 Max-Q at 192.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, a difference of 6 GB/s (3.2%). Given the identical memory size and bus width, this gap stems solely from the higher effective memory clock of 16 Gbps versus 15.5 Gbps.

Clock speeds are the only metric where the Arc A380E leads: its 2000 MHz boost clock is 24.6% higher than the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s 1605 MHz boost, and its 2000 MHz base clock is 75.4% higher than the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s 1140 MHz base. However, these clock advantages do not translate into any throughput win, because the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s higher unit counts (2560 shading units versus 1024) more than compensate.

The transistor density comparison is stark: the RTX 4050 Max-Q’s 118.9M per mm² is 159% higher than the Arc A380E’s 45.9M per mm². This density difference explains how the NVIDIA chip fits 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die, while the Intel chip fits only 7,200 million into a similarly sized 157 mm² die.

Power consumption is the final differentiator. The RTX 4050 Max-Q consumes 35 W, while the Arc A380E consumes 75 W, meaning the NVIDIA part operates at 46.7% of the Intel part’s power draw. Combined with its double FP32 throughput, the RTX 4050 Max-Q delivers 0.235 TFLOPS per watt versus the Arc A380E’s 0.055 TFLOPS per watt, a 4.3 times efficiency advantage in raw compute per watt. The RTX 4050 Max-Q also has 80 tensor cores, which the Arc A380E entirely lacks, and 20 ray tracing cores versus 8, giving it 2.5 times the ray tracing hardware. These figures place the RTX 4050 Max-Q as the higher-performing and more efficient part across every measured compute and memory metric, with the Arc A380E’s only advantages being its higher clock speeds, fixed single-slot form factor, and dedicated DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.