Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Arc A380E and the NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries. The database lists zero wins for either side in this comparison, and the average benchmark score for both parts is zero. This makes a traditional performance ranking impossible from the measurements alone. What the database does provide is a detailed specification profile for each, which allows for a theoretical analysis of where each GPU would likely dominate based on architectural capabilities.

The most striking numerical gap appears in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 10.37 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc A380E manages 4.096 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at roughly 2.5 times the single-precision throughput. The FP16 comparison tells a similar story: NVIDIA maintains 10.37 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while Intel reaches 8.192 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio. In practical terms, the NVIDIA GPU sustains full-rate FP16 even when the workload does not use specialized tensor instructions, whereas Intel's FP16 throughput drops by half when not using dedicated hardware. For compute-heavy tasks such as AI inference or scientific simulation, the data strongly favors NVIDIA.

Pixel throughput further separates the two. The RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation reaches 97.20 GPixel/s, compared to Intel's 64.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern: NVIDIA records 162.0 GTexel/s against Intel's 128.0 GTexel/s. These figures indicate that NVIDIA holds an advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution rendering with heavy alpha blending or shadow map generation. The Intel part is not slow in absolute terms, but the margin is consistent across every throughput metric.

Memory bandwidth is one of the few areas where the gap narrows. NVIDIA lists 192.0 GB/s, while Intel shows 186.0 GB/s. That is a modest 3% advantage for NVIDIA, unlikely to be decisive in most workloads. Both cards use 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, so capacity and bus width are identical. The memory clock differs slightly: NVIDIA runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus Intel's 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The bandwidth difference is real but small.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story about design philosophy. Intel's base and boost clocks are both 2000 MHz, meaning the card runs at a fixed frequency with no boost headroom. NVIDIA's base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost of 2025 MHz. The NVIDIA GPU therefore starts lower but exceeds Intel's sustained clock under load. This suggests Intel prioritized consistent power draw and thermal predictability, while NVIDIA designed for burst performance when thermals allow.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows no direct test results, so the verdict must come from the specification sheet. The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation holds a commanding lead in every computational throughput metric. Its FP32 output is 2.5 times higher, its pixel rate is 52% higher, and its texture rate is 27% higher. Memory bandwidth is also slightly higher at 192.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA part also includes 80 tensor cores and 20 RT cores, while the Intel card has 8 RT cores and no listed tensor cores.

The Intel Arc A380E does have one structural advantage: it is a desktop card with a 75 W TDP, a single-slot design, and four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA part is a mobile IGP with a 35 W TDP and portable-device-dependent display outputs. For a fixed workstation with an available PCIe 4.0 x8 slot, Intel offers a simpler installation path. But for raw processing capability, the data points entirely toward NVIDIA.

The transistor density figures reinforce this. NVIDIA packs 18,900 million transistors into 159 mm², yielding 118.9M transistors per mm² on a 5 nm process. Intel uses 7,200 million transistors across 157 mm², giving 45.9M per mm² on a 6 nm process. NVIDIA's design is far denser, which explains how it achieves more than double the FP32 throughput within a similar die area.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation wins in compute-heavy workloads. The 10.37 TFLOPS FP32 rate and 10.37 TFLOPS FP16 rate make it the stronger choice for neural network inference, physics simulation, and any CUDA-accelerated task. The 80 tensor cores and 20 RT cores add dedicated hardware for AI and ray tracing that the Intel card cannot match. The higher pixel rate of 97.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 162.0 GTexel/s also favor NVIDIA for 3D rendering and video processing.

The Intel Arc A380E wins in integration flexibility. Its 75 W TDP requires no external power connectors, and its single-slot 254 mm length fits standard desktop cases. The four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs provide multi-monitor capability without adapter dependencies. The fixed 2000 MHz clock means predictable performance in sustained workloads, which can be useful in industrial or always-on environments. The 6 GB memory capacity matches NVIDIA, so memory-bound tasks will not immediately starve either card.

Power efficiency favors NVIDIA despite its higher performance. The RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation consumes 35 W while delivering 10.37 TFLOPS, giving roughly 0.30 TFLOPS per watt. The Intel card delivers 4.096 TFLOPS at 75 W, or roughly 0.055 TFLOPS per watt. The database does not list a suggested PSU for NVIDIA, but Intel recommends a 250 W power supply. For battery-powered or thermally constrained systems, NVIDIA is the clear winner.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation records 10.37 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc A380E records 4.096 TFLOPS. NVIDIA is approximately 2.5 times faster in single-precision compute.

Q: Do both cards use the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both use 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus. NVIDIA has a slight bandwidth advantage at 192.0 GB/s versus Intel's 186.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Both support ray tracing. The NVIDIA card has 20 RT cores, while the Intel card has 8 RT cores. NVIDIA also includes 80 tensor cores, which Intel does not list.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has a 75 W TDP, while the NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation has a 35 W TDP. Intel requires a suggested 250 W power supply; NVIDIA does not list a suggested PSU.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores recorded for these GPUs?

A: The database shows an average benchmark score of zero for both GPUs, and no head-to-head benchmark entries exist. All conclusions in this analysis come from the specification data.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: NVIDIA has 2560 shading units, while Intel has 1024. NVIDIA also has 80 texture mapping units and 48 ROPs, compared to Intel's 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A380E uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process. The chip is designated DG2-128, and it belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The die measures 157 mm² and contains 7,200 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The architecture provides 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. No tensor cores are listed. The memory subsystem uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The card is single-slot with no power connectors, a 75 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested PSU. Display output comes through four DisplayPort 2.0 connections. The PCIe interface is 4.0 x8.

The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process. The chip is AD107, and it belongs to the Ada-MW (x000A) generation. The die measures 159 mm² and contains 18,900 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The architecture provides 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. Memory is 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TDP is 35 W, and the design is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The PCIe interface is 4.0 x8.

The core count discrepancy is significant. NVIDIA has 2.5 times more shading units, 25% more TMUs, and 50% more ROPs. The RT core count is 20 versus 8, and the tensor core count is 80 versus none. These differences explain the performance gap in rendering, ray tracing, and AI workloads. The transistor density difference also indicates a more advanced manufacturing process and a more complex design.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable field except memory capacity, bus width, PCIe interface, and API support. Both use 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, both connect via PCIe 4.0 x8, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock speeds differ substantially. Intel runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost. NVIDIA starts at 1485 MHz base and boosts to 2025 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: Intel at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus NVIDIA at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Process technology separates them. Intel uses a 6 nm TSMC node, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC node. Transistor counts are 7,200 million versus 18,900 million, and die sizes are 157 mm² versus 159 mm². Transistor density is 45.9M per mm² versus 118.9M per mm².

Compute capabilities show the largest gaps. FP32 is 4.096 TFLOPS versus 10.37 TFLOPS. FP16 is 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 10.37 TFLOPS (1:1). Pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s versus 97.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s versus 162.0 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design differ completely. Intel has a 75 W TDP, a single-slot design, a 250 W suggested PSU, and dimensions of 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm. NVIDIA has a 35 W TDP, an IGP design, no suggested PSU, and no listed dimensions. Intel offers four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs; NVIDIA's outputs are portable-device-dependent.

Production status also differs. Intel's card is end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with the predecessor Xe Graphics and successor Battlemage. NVIDIA's card is active, released on 2024-02-25, with the predecessor Ampere-MW and successor Blackwell-MW. The series field for NVIDIA lists GeForce 10-series, while Intel's series is null.