Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA H100 NVL 94 GB Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data places these two GPUs at opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, and the use-case split is stark. The Intel Arc A380E is a low-power, display-oriented card built around the DG2-128 chip, while the NVIDIA H100 NVL 94 GB is a server accelerator with no display outputs at all. The A380E carries 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it suitable for multi-display workstation or signage duties. The H100 NVL 94 GB lists no outputs, which immediately signals its role as a compute-only device.

Benchmark results show zero wins for either part in the head-to-head database, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of zero. That means the quantitative comparison is driven entirely by architecture, memory, and throughput specifications rather than recorded frame-rate or workload scores. In terms of raw compute, the H100 NVL 94 GB dominates on FP32, FP16, texture rate, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity. The A380E counters with a higher pixel rate, a smaller physical footprint, lower power draw, and the presence of display outputs.

For rendering pipelines that emphasize pixel throughput, the A380E delivers a 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 42.84 GPixel/s for the H100 NVL 94 GB. That is a meaningful advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. For texture-heavy workloads, the H100 NVL 94 GB is far ahead at 942.5 GTexel/s against 128.0 GTexel/s. The A380E also offers DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, while the H100 NVL 94 GB lists no graphics API support, reinforcing that the NVIDIA part is not intended for traditional rendering.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries and process nodes. The Intel Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, incorporating 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². It belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation under the Xe-HPG architecture, with a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage. The chip is already end-of-life, with a release date of 2024-03-31.

The NVIDIA H100 NVL 94 GB uses the GH100 chip on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 98.3M per mm², more than double the Intel part. It is part of the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation under the Hopper architecture, with a predecessor of Server Ada and a successor of Server Blackwell. The production status is Active, and its release date is 2023-03-20.

Core configuration differs sharply. The A380E has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The H100 NVL 94 GB has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores, with no ray tracing cores listed. The NVIDIA part has nearly 16.5 times the shading units and 8.25 times the TMUs, but fewer ROPs. Clock speeds also diverge: the A380E runs at 2000 MHz base and boost, while the H100 NVL 94 GB runs at 1080 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. Despite the lower base clock, the NVIDIA part's massive core count delivers far higher aggregate throughput.

Memory architecture is another major split. The A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H100 NVL 94 GB uses 94 GB of HBM3 on a 6016-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1310 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) and 3.94 TB/s bandwidth. That is over 21 times the memory capacity and over 21 times the bandwidth. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the A380E versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for the H100 NVL 94 GB.

Power and physical design follow the respective roles. The A380E has a 75 W TDP, is single-slot, uses no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The H100 NVL 94 GB has a 400 W TDP, is dual-slot, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, and suggests an 800 W PSU. The A380E measures 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The H100 NVL 94 GB measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with no width listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark scores for these two parts, so the comparison relies on specification-level throughput figures. The largest wins for the H100 NVL 94 GB come in compute and memory throughput. In FP32, the NVIDIA part delivers 60.32 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the A380E, a difference of roughly 14.7 times. In FP16, the gap widens further: 241.3 TFLOPS (4:1) versus 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1), a difference of about 29.5 times. The H100 NVL 94 GB also leads in texture rate with 942.5 GTexel/s against 128.0 GTexel/s, and in memory bandwidth with 3.94 TB/s against 186.0 GB/s. Memory capacity is 94 GB versus 6 GB.

The A380E wins in pixel rate, posting 64.00 GPixel/s against 42.84 GPixel/s for the H100 NVL 94 GB. That is a 49.4% advantage in raw pixel throughput, which can matter in rasterization-heavy tasks. The A380E also has double the ROP count at 32 versus 24, reinforcing its pixel-processing edge. Clock speed is another A380E advantage: 2000 MHz boost versus 1785 MHz boost for the H100 NVL 94 GB, and the A380E's base clock of 2000 MHz is nearly double the H100's 1080 MHz base.

Power efficiency favors the A380E when measured per watt. The A380E draws 75 W and delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32, which is roughly 54.6 GFLOPS per watt. The H100 NVL 94 GB draws 400 W and delivers 60.32 TFLOPS FP32, which is roughly 150.8 GFLOPS per watt. So the NVIDIA part is actually more efficient per watt in FP32, but the A380E requires far less total power and no external power connector.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA H100 NVL 94 GB has 16,896 shading units, while the Intel Arc A380E has 1,024.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The H100 NVL 94 GB has 3.94 TB/s of bandwidth from 94 GB of HBM3 on a 6016-bit bus. The A380E has 186.0 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus.

Q: Does the H100 NVL 94 GB support display outputs?

A: No. The H100 NVL 94 GB lists no display outputs, while the A380E has 4x DisplayPort 2.0.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 8 ray tracing cores. The H100 NVL 94 GB lists no ray tracing cores but has 528 tensor cores.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The A380E has a 75 W TDP and needs no power connectors. The H100 NVL 94 GB has a 400 W TDP and uses an 8-pin EPS connector.

Q: Which part is still in production?

A: The H100 NVL 94 GB is listed as Active. The A380E is end-of-life, with a successor named Battlemage.

The Verdict

The data points to two completely different deployment targets. The Intel Arc A380E is a low-power, single-slot card with display outputs, a 75 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested PSU. It is suited to environments where pixel throughput, small physical size, and minimal power draw matter, and where DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support are required. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest, and its 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 places it firmly in the entry-level segment.

The NVIDIA H100 NVL 94 GB is a server accelerator with no display outputs, a 400 W TDP, and an 800 W suggested PSU. Its 94 GB of HBM3 and 3.94 TB/s bandwidth, combined with 60.32 TFLOPS FP32 and 241.3 TFLOPS FP16, position it for large-scale compute workloads. The 528 tensor cores and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface further indicate a focus on accelerated compute rather than rendering.

The pixel rate result is the only major specification win for the A380E, and it comes with a substantially lower total power envelope. The H100 NVL 94 GB wins on shading units, TMUs, tensor cores, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, FP32, FP16, texture rate, and bus interface width. It is also built on a denser 5 nm process with 98.3M transistors per mm² versus 45.9M for the A380E, and it remains in active production.

For users needing a compact, display-capable card with modest power requirements, the A380E is the only option of the two that fits that description. For compute-heavy workloads demanding maximum memory bandwidth and floating-point throughput, the H100 NVL 94 GB is the clear choice based on the recorded specifications. The absence of head-to-head benchmark scores means the verdict rests on architectural and throughput data, which overwhelmingly favors the NVIDIA part for compute and the Intel part for pixel-rate-centric and display-oriented tasks.