Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA H100 CNX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no recorded head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Arc A380E and the NVIDIA H100 CNX. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0, and the percentile ranking for each sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs tracked in the database. With zero wins recorded for either side and no nearest rivals listed, the quantitative comparison rests entirely on the architectural and specification data available for each part.

The Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA H100 CNX reaches 53.84 TFLOPS in the same precision. That places the H100 CNX roughly 13 times higher in raw single-precision throughput, a gap that reflects their fundamentally different design targets. In FP16, the Arc A380E achieves 8.192 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, whereas the H100 CNX reaches 215.4 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio. The H100 CNX again dominates by a wide margin, though the ratio difference means the NVIDIA part scales its half-precision performance more aggressively relative to its FP32 output.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The Arc A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, producing 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The H100 CNX employs 80 GB of HBM2e across a 5120-bit interface, yielding 2.04 TB/s. That is an order-of-magnitude difference in both capacity and throughput. The H100 CNX also operates its memory at 1593 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective speed, while the Arc A380E runs memory at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective, though the narrow bus on the Intel part limits the practical impact of that faster signaling rate.

Pixel throughput favors the Arc A380E despite its smaller overall footprint. The Intel GPU records 64.00 GPixel/s against 44.28 GPixel/s for the H100 CNX. Texture rate reverses that result: the Arc A380E produces 128.0 GTexel/s, while the H100 CNX reaches 841.3 GTexel/s, a 6.5x advantage. These figures reflect the different rasterization and compute priorities of the two architectures. The Arc A380E packs 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the H100 CNX uses 14592 shading units, 456 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs. The NVIDIA part allocates far more silicon to shading and texturing, but its low ROP count limits pixel output, which explains the narrower gap in that metric.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two products with almost no functional overlap. The Intel Arc A380E is a compact, low-power graphics adapter built around a 6 nm DG2-128 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It draws 75 W, uses no external power connectors, and fits in a single slot with dimensions of 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm. It provides four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its production status is end-of-life, and it was released on 2024-03-31.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX is a server accelerator built on the 5 nm GH100 chip using the Hopper architecture, part of the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. It consumes 350 W, requires an 8-pin EPS power connector, and occupies a dual-slot design at 267 mm by 111 mm. It has no display outputs and lists no graphics API support, indicating it is not intended for direct rendering workloads. It remains in active production and was released on 2023-03-20.

Given the absence of benchmark scores, the verdict follows from the specification deltas. The H100 CNX targets compute-intensive server environments where FP32, FP16, and memory bandwidth dominate. The Arc A380E targets client-side rendering where display outputs, graphics API compatibility, and low power draw matter. The data shows no scenario where the two compete directly, and the specification differences reinforce that separation.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380E wins in pixel fill rate, delivering 64.00 GPixel/s compared to 44.28 GPixel/s for the H100 CNX. It also wins on slot efficiency, using a single-slot footprint versus the dual-slot H100 CNX, and on power draw, with a 75 W TDP against 350 W. The Arc A380E additionally provides display connectivity through four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, whereas the H100 CNX offers none. Its base clock of 2000 MHz and boost clock of 2000 MHz are substantially higher than the H100 CNX's 690 MHz base and 1845 MHz boost, indicating the Intel part sustains its frequency across the board without reliance on boost behavior.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX wins in every compute-heavy category. FP32 performance is 53.84 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 215.4 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth is 2.04 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, and memory capacity is 80 GB versus 6 GB. Texture rate is 841.3 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. The H100 CNX also carries 456 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the Arc A380E. Its transistor count of 80,000 million dwarfs the Arc A380E's 7,200 million, and its die size of 814 mm² is more than five times larger than the 157 mm² Intel die.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX, at 53.84 TFLOPS, compared to 4.096 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc A380E.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6, while the NVIDIA H100 CNX has 80 GB of HBM2e.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W, and the NVIDIA H100 CNX has a TDP of 350 W.

Q: Which GPU supports display outputs?

A: The Intel Arc A380E provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has no display outputs.

Q: Do either of these GPUs have tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA H100 CNX lists tensor cores, with 456. The Intel Arc A380E does not list any.

Q: What are the production statuses?

A: The Intel Arc A380E is end-of-life. The NVIDIA H100 CNX is active.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A380E uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm process at TSMC, built around the DG2-128 chip. It belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation and has a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage. The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses the Hopper architecture on a 5 nm process at TSMC, built around the GH100 chip. It belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation and has a predecessor of Server Ada and a successor of Server Blackwell.

The Arc A380E includes 8 ray tracing cores, while the H100 CNX does not list any. The H100 CNX includes 456 tensor cores, while the Arc A380E does not list any. The Arc A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H100 CNX lists no graphics API support. The Arc A380E uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface; the H100 CNX uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The Arc A380E has a transistor density of 45.9M per mm², while the H100 CNX reaches 98.3M per mm². The Arc A380E has no power connectors, while the H100 CNX requires an 8-pin EPS connector. The Arc A380E is single-slot, while the H100 CNX is dual-slot.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Intel Arc A380E uses 6 nm process technology; the NVIDIA H100 CNX uses 5 nm. Transistor counts are 7,200 million versus 80,000 million. Die sizes are 157 mm² versus 814 mm². Transistor densities are 45.9M per mm² versus 98.3M per mm². Base clocks are 2000 MHz versus 690 MHz. Boost clocks are 2000 MHz versus 1845 MHz. Memory clocks are 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 1593 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). Memory sizes are 6 GB versus 80 GB. Memory types are GDDR6 versus HBM2e. Bus widths are 96 bit versus 5120 bit. Bandwidth is 186.0 GB/s versus 2.04 TB/s.

Shading units number 1024 versus 14592. TMUs number 64 versus 456. ROPs number 32 versus 24. Ray tracing cores number 8 versus none listed. Tensor cores number none listed versus 456. Pixel rates are 64.00 GPixel/s versus 44.28 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 128.0 GTexel/s versus 841.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.096 TFLOPS versus 53.84 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 215.4 TFLOPS (4:1). TDP is 75 W versus 350 W. Slot widths are single-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 8-pin EPS. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 750 W. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.0 versus no outputs. Dimensions are 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm versus 267 mm by 111 mm with no recorded width. Release dates are 2024-03-31 versus 2023-03-20. Production status is end-of-life versus active.