Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain recorded head-to-head benchmark scores for the Intel Arc A380E and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q. Neither item lists any benchmark entries, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. As a result, there are no exact performance deltas, no percentage differences, and no win counts to report. The absence of measured data means that any direct comparison of frame rates, compute throughput, or render times must remain qualitative, relying on the architectural and specification details that are present in the record.

The closest available indicators are the raw compute and memory figures. The NVIDIA GPU shows a FP32 throughput of 11.34 TFLOPS, while the Intel GPU shows 4.096 TFLOPS. That difference implies a substantial theoretical advantage for the NVIDIA part in general-purpose single-precision work, but without benchmark scores, the actual delivered performance cannot be quantified. Similarly, the texture rate for NVIDIA is 177.1 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s for Intel, and the pixel rates are 59.04 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s. Interestingly, the Intel part has a higher pixel rate despite the lower overall compute and texture throughput, which suggests a different balance of fixed-function units.

Memory bandwidth also diverges: the RTX 4070 Max-Q offers 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the Arc A380E offers 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit bus. The NVIDIA part has more capacity as well, 8 GB versus 6 GB. These figures indicate that the NVIDIA GPU is positioned to handle larger datasets and higher-resolution textures more comfortably. Yet the absence of benchmark results means the data cannot confirm whether that theoretical advantage translates into real-world wins in specific titles or workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The Intel Arc A380E uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD106 chip, built on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is small but relevant: 5 nm versus 6 nm. The transistor counts tell a larger story. The Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA chip contains 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, giving a density of 121.8M per mm². That is a massive density gap, reflecting both the newer process and the larger design.

The NVIDIA GPU belongs to the GeForce 40 Mobile generation, while the Intel GPU belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The Intel part is marked as end-of-life, with a successor listed as Battlemage. The NVIDIA part is active, with a successor listed as GeForce 50 Mobile. The Intel predecessor is Xe Graphics; the NVIDIA predecessor is GeForce 30 Mobile. These lineage details indicate that the two products are at different stages of their lifecycles, which may influence driver maturity and software optimization, though the database does not record any such performance effects.

Shader and compute unit counts differ sharply. The Intel GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 raster output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA GPU has 4608 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, 48 raster output units, 36 ray tracing cores, and 144 tensor cores. The tensor core count is particularly significant, as the Intel part lists no tensor cores at all. That means the NVIDIA GPU has dedicated hardware for AI-accelerated features, while the Intel GPU has none recorded. The FP16 throughput also reflects this: Intel lists 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA lists 11.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The absence of tensor cores on the Intel side limits its capability for certain machine learning workloads, though the database does not include any specific benchmarks to demonstrate the impact.

Where Each One Wins

Without benchmark scores, the wins must be inferred from the specification data. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q wins in raw compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, shading unit count, texture rate, ray tracing core count, and tensor core availability. Its FP32 throughput of 11.34 TFLOPS is roughly 2.8 times the Intel figure, and its texture rate is about 1.4 times higher. It also has 36 ray tracing cores versus 8, and 144 tensor cores versus none. For workloads that rely on these resources, such as ray-traced rendering, AI inference, or high-resolution texture streaming, the NVIDIA part has a clear theoretical edge.

The Intel Arc A380E wins in a few specific areas. Its pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s is higher than the NVIDIA figure of 59.04 GPixel/s, despite the NVIDIA part having more ROPs (48 versus 32). This suggests that the Intel GPU may be more efficient at rasterization throughput per ROP, which could benefit certain fill-rate-limited scenarios. The Intel GPU also has a higher base and boost clock, both at 2000 MHz, whereas the NVIDIA GPU runs at 735 MHz base and 1230 MHz boost. That clock advantage does not translate into higher overall compute, but it indicates a different design philosophy: the Intel part operates at a higher frequency with fewer units, while the NVIDIA part uses many more units at lower clocks.

Power consumption is another differentiator. The Intel GPU has a TDP of 75 W, while the NVIDIA GPU has a TDP of 35 W. The NVIDIA part consumes less than half the power while delivering far higher theoretical compute. That makes the RTX 4070 Max-Q more attractive for thin-and-light laptops where thermal and power budgets are tight. The Intel part, with its higher TDP, may require more robust cooling, though its single-slot form factor and lack of power connectors suggest it is still designed for compact integration. The Intel GPU also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W for a desktop context, while the NVIDIA part lists no such figure, indicating it is intended for mobile integration.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. The process node is 6 nm for Intel and 5 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor density is 45.9M per mm² versus 121.8M per mm². The die size is 157 mm² versus 188 mm². The base clock is 2000 MHz versus 735 MHz, and the boost clock is 2000 MHz versus 1230 MHz. Memory speed is 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective for Intel, versus 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for NVIDIA. Memory size is 6 GB versus 8 GB, bus width is 96 bit versus 128 bit, and bandwidth is 186.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 1024 versus 4608, TMUs are 64 versus 144, ROPs are 32 versus 48, ray tracing cores are 8 versus 36, and tensor cores are null versus 144. Pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s versus 59.04 GPixel/s, texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s versus 177.1 GTexel/s, FP32 is 4.096 TFLOPS versus 11.34 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 8.192 TFLOPS versus 11.34 TFLOPS. TDP is 75 W versus 35 W. The Intel part is single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W; the NVIDIA part is listed as IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for both. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.0 for Intel, while NVIDIA is listed as portable device dependent. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel GPU has dimensions of 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width; the NVIDIA GPU has no recorded dimensions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q shows 11.34 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc A380E shows 4.096 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is approximately 2.8 times higher in this metric.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380E have tensor cores?

A: No. The database lists tensor cores as null for the Intel part. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q lists 144 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA part also has higher bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, which is higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q at 59.04 GPixel/s, despite the NVIDIA part having more ROPs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q has a TDP of 35 W. The NVIDIA part consumes less power while offering higher compute and memory throughput.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface is also the same, PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Verdict

The data in the database points to a clear division of roles. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q is the stronger candidate for compute-heavy workloads, ray tracing, and AI-accelerated features. Its 4608 shading units, 36 ray tracing cores, 144 tensor cores, 11.34 TFLOPS FP32, and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth place it well ahead of the Intel Arc A380E in nearly every performance-oriented specification. The lower TDP of 35 W also makes it better suited for mobile devices where power efficiency matters. The active production status and successor in GeForce 50 Mobile indicate an ongoing product line.

The Intel Arc A380E offers a narrower set of advantages. Its higher pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s and higher clock speeds at 2000 MHz are notable, but they do not compensate for the substantial gaps in compute units, memory, and feature support. The lack of tensor cores and the lower ray tracing core count restrict its applicability in modern accelerated workloads. Its end-of-life status and successor in Battlemage suggest that Intel is moving on from this design. For a user prioritizing raw throughput, memory bandwidth, and AI capabilities, the NVIDIA GPU is the data-backed choice. For a user constrained to a single-slot, low-profile form factor with DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, the Intel GPU holds a niche, but the recorded specifications show that the NVIDIA part dominates the broader performance landscape.