Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc A380E versus the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q. Both entries have empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and equal percentile rankings at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. The absence of measured data means no exact score deltas can be quoted for any workload, and no direct wins can be assigned to either side in the head-to-head table.

What the data does show is a substantial gap in theoretical compute specifications. The RTX 4060 Max-Q delivers 9.032 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is 2.206 times the Intel Arc A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS. In FP16, NVIDIA maintains a 1:1 ratio with 9.032 TFLOPS, while Intel's 2:1 rate produces 8.192 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part also leads in pixel throughput at 70.56 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, a 10.25% advantage, and in texture rate at 141.1 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, an 10.23% advantage.

Memory bandwidth follows the same pattern. The RTX 4060 Max-Q accesses 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the Arc A380E manages 186.0 GB/s across a 96-bit interface. That is a 37.6% bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA. Effective memory speed is 16 Gbps on the RTX 4060 Max-Q versus 15.5 Gbps on the Arc A380E. Frame buffer capacity also differs: 8 GB versus 6 GB.

The shading unit count reinforces the compute gap. NVIDIA packs 3072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. Intel provides 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX 4060 Max-Q carries 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores; the Arc A380E has 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor core field populated. On paper, every major throughput metric favors the NVIDIA adapter.

Clock behavior tells a different story. The Intel card runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, which is a locked single-speed design. The NVIDIA chip has a 1140 MHz base clock and a 1470 MHz boost clock. Intel's higher sustained clock partially compensates for its narrower execution resources, but the 2.2x difference in FP32 output indicates the clock advantage is not enough to close the gap.

# Where Each One Wins

The Arc A380E wins in power efficiency from a system integration perspective. Its 75 W TDP is higher than the RTX 4060 Max-Q's 35 W TDP, but that figure is not a win for Intel. The NVIDIA part draws substantially less power while delivering higher throughput across the board. The only category where Intel shows a clear edge is physical form factor flexibility: the Arc A380E is a single-slot, 254 mm long, 127 mm tall, 20 mm wide card with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The RTX 4060 Max-Q is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dimensions listed, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, making it suitable only for portable devices where the motherboard provides power delivery.

For display connectivity, the Arc A380E offers 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The RTX 4060 Max-Q lists "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, meaning the actual ports depend on the laptop or mobile chassis. A desktop builder needing fixed DisplayPort 2.0 connectivity would favor the Intel card. A mobile platform designer would have no use for the Arc A380E's slot-based design.

The RTX 4060 Max-Q wins every raw performance category that the database records. It has more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, more texture units, more ROPs, more ray tracing cores, and higher FP32 and FP16 throughput. It also has tensor cores, which the Arc A380E lacks entirely. The 24 ray tracing cores versus 8 indicates better ray tracing workload capability, though no benchmark scores confirm this behavior in practice.

Production status favors NVIDIA. The RTX 4060 Max-Q is listed as "Active," while the Arc A380E is "End-of-life." Release dates place the NVIDIA part at 2023-01-02 and the Intel part at 2024-03-31, meaning Intel's product launched later but has already been discontinued. The Arc A380E's predecessor is "Xe Graphics" and its successor is "Battlemage," while the RTX 4060 Max-Q's predecessor is "GeForce 30 Mobile" and its successor is "GeForce 50 Mobile."

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q delivers 9.032 TFLOPS, which is 2.206 times the Intel Arc A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The RTX 4060 Max-Q provides 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the Arc A380E provides 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit bus, a 37.6% difference.

Q: What are the TDP values for these GPUs?

A: The Arc A380E has a 75 W TDP and a suggested 250 W PSU. The RTX 4060 Max-Q has a 35 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing hardware?

A: Both support ray tracing. The Arc A380E has 8 ray tracing cores, while the RTX 4060 Max-Q has 24 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the production status of each product?

A: The Arc A380E is end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31. The RTX 4060 Max-Q is active, released on 2023-01-02.

Q: Do these GPUs use the same process node?

A: No. The Arc A380E uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the RTX 4060 Max-Q uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every listed specification. Memory size: 6 GB on Intel, 8 GB on NVIDIA. Memory type: both GDDR6. Bus width: 96 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Memory clock: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Shading units: 1024 versus 3072. TMUs: 64 versus 96. ROPs: 32 versus 48. Ray tracing cores: 8 versus 24. Tensor cores: none versus 96. FP32: 4.096 TFLOPS versus 9.032 TFLOPS. FP16: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 9.032 TFLOPS (1:1). Pixel rate: 64.00 GPixel/s versus 70.56 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 128.0 GTexel/s versus 141.1 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds: base 2000 MHz and boost 2000 MHz on Intel; base 1140 MHz and boost 1470 MHz on NVIDIA. TDP: 75 W versus 35 W. Slot width: single-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: none on both. Suggested PSU: 250 W on Intel, none on NVIDIA. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 on both. Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.0 versus portable device dependent.

Die size is similar: 157 mm² on Intel versus 159 mm² on NVIDIA. Transistor count differs sharply: 7,200 million versus 18,900 million. Transistor density: 45.9M per mm² versus 118.9M per mm². Process node: 6 nm versus 5 nm, both TSMC.

Physical dimensions exist only for Intel: 254 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width. NVIDIA lists no dimensions. Production status: end-of-life versus active. Release date: 2024-03-31 versus 2023-01-02. Predecessor: Xe Graphics versus GeForce 30 Mobile. Successor: Battlemage versus GeForce 50 Mobile.

# Architecture Differences

Intel uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. NVIDIA uses Ada Lovelace with the AD107 chip, part of the GeForce 40 Mobile generation. Both implement DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature parity exists at the specification level.

Transistor density is the clearest architectural differentiator. NVIDIA packs 118.9 million transistors per square millimeter on a 5 nm node, while Intel manages 45.9 million per square millimeter on 6 nm. Both are TSMC foundries. The NVIDIA chip contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die; Intel contains 7,200 million on a 157 mm² die. Nearly identical die area, but 2.625 times more transistors on the NVIDIA side.

FP16 behavior separates the architectures. Intel runs FP16 at a 2:1 rate relative to FP32, meaning 8.192 TFLOPS. NVIDIA runs FP16 at a 1:1 rate, producing 9.032 TFLOPS. For applications that use FP16 heavily, NVIDIA offers both higher absolute throughput and a simpler ratio.

Tensor cores exist only on NVIDIA, with 96 units. The Arc A380E has no tensor core field populated, indicating no equivalent hardware for tensor-based workloads. Ray tracing resources also differ: 8 cores on Intel versus 24 on NVIDIA.

The clock architecture differs meaningfully. Intel locks base and boost at 2000 MHz, a fixed-frequency design. NVIDIA uses a variable clock range from 1140 MHz base to 1470 MHz boost. This suggests the Intel part sustains a constant clock under load, while the NVIDIA part scales dynamically within a power envelope.

# The Verdict

The data supports a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q outperforms the Intel Arc A380E in FP32 compute by a factor of 2.206, in memory bandwidth by 37.6%, in pixel rate by 10.25%, and in texture rate by 10.23%. It has more memory, more shading units, more ray tracing cores, and the only tensor cores in the comparison. Its 35 W TDP is less than half of Intel's 75 W TDP, making it the more efficient choice for portable devices.

The Arc A380E is a desktop-oriented, single-slot card with fixed DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and a 250 W suggested PSU. It is end-of-life, released later than its rival, and built on a less dense process node. Its flat 2000 MHz clock does not compensate for the 3x difference in shading units.

A builder targeting a desktop system with discrete DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and a single-slot card would find the Arc A380E viable within its 75 W envelope. A portable device designer would select the RTX 4060 Max-Q, which is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, integrated directly into the motherboard. The NVIDIA part also holds the production status advantage as an active product, while Intel's offering has been discontinued.

All measured benchmarks are absent from the database, so real-world workload deltas cannot be quoted. The specification comparison, however, consistently favors the RTX 4060 Max-Q across compute, memory, and feature set. The only specifications where Intel leads are clock speed, physical dimensions, and display output count. Those factors matter in specific form-factor-constrained builds, but they do not offset the NVIDIA part's aggregate performance advantage.