Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of transistor count and manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Arc A380E uses a 6 nm process at TSMC and contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process at TSMC and packs 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die. This gives the NVIDIA part a transistor density of 118.9M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm² for Intel.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Arc A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has both more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more compute units and what does that mean for raw FP32 performance?

A: The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada has 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, producing 12.35 TFLOPS FP32. The Arc A380E has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, producing 4.096 TFLOPS FP32. The NVIDIA part delivers three times the FP32 throughput.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They are equally current in API feature support.

Q: What are the power requirements and physical form factors?

A: The Arc A380E has a 75 W TDP and is a single-slot card measuring 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada has a 50 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor with no listed dimensions and no power connectors.

Q: What is the release and production status of each product?

A: The Arc A380E was released on 2024-03-31 and is end-of-life. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada was released on 2023-03-20 and is still active in production.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc A380E is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, using the AD107 chip, and belongs to the Ada-MW generation.

The manufacturing processes differ significantly. Intel uses a 6 nm TSMC process, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC process. The die sizes are nearly identical (157 mm² for Intel, 159 mm² for NVIDIA), but the transistor counts tell a different story. NVIDIA packs 18,900 million transistors into essentially the same area, achieving 118.9M transistors per mm², compared to Intel's 7,200 million transistors at 45.9M per mm². This density difference reflects the architectural complexity of Ada Lovelace, which includes dedicated tensor cores and ray tracing hardware.

Speaking of specialized hardware, the NVIDIA part includes 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores. The Intel part has 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. This means the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada has three times the ray tracing hardware and a full tensor core array for AI-accelerated workloads. The Arc A380E lacks tensor cores entirely, relying on general-purpose shading units for such tasks.

Clock speeds also differ. The Arc A380E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, with memory clocked at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 2010 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA part boosts slightly higher and has faster memory.

FP16 performance reveals another architectural split. The Arc A380E achieves 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 using a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada achieves 12.35 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it maintains full throughput in half-precision workloads. This makes the NVIDIA part more efficient for compute tasks that leverage FP16.

The bus interface differs as well. The Arc A380E uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada uses PCIe 4.0 x16, providing double the lane count for data transfer. Display outputs also vary: the Intel card has 4x DisplayPort 2.0, while the NVIDIA card's outputs are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a substantial performance gap in favor of the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada across nearly every measurable category. The most striking difference is in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA part delivers 12.35 TFLOPS FP32, which is three times the 4.096 TFLOPS of the Arc A380E. This translates directly to rendering performance and compute workload capability.

Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada achieves 193.0 GTexel/s texture rate and 96.48 GPixel/s pixel rate. The Arc A380E manages 128.0 GTexel/s and 64.00 GPixel/s respectively. The NVIDIA card outperforms by roughly 51% in texture throughput and 51% in pixel throughput.

Memory bandwidth is another clear win for NVIDIA. The 256.0 GB/s bandwidth of the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada exceeds the 186.0 GB/s of the Arc A380E by approximately 38%. Combined with double the memory capacity (8 GB versus 6 GB), the NVIDIA part has a significant advantage in memory-bound workloads and larger texture datasets.

The shading unit count reinforces this dominance. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada has 3,072 shading units versus 1,024 for the Arc A380E, a 3x difference. TMUs and ROPs also favor NVIDIA: 96 TMUs and 48 ROPs versus 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs.

The only category where the Intel card shows a relative advantage is in clock speed at the base level. The Arc A380E runs at 2000 MHz base, which is 470 MHz higher than the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada's 1530 MHz base. However, the NVIDIA part's boost clock of 2010 MHz nearly matches the Intel card's boost, and the architectural efficiency of Ada Lovelace more than compensates for the lower base clock.

In FP16 compute, the gap narrows but still favors NVIDIA. The Arc A380E achieves 8.192 TFLOPS FP16, while the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada achieves 12.35 TFLOPS FP16. The Intel card's 2:1 FP16 ratio means it loses half its FP32 throughput when doing half-precision work, while the NVIDIA card maintains full throughput.

Ray tracing hardware also differs significantly. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada has 24 ray tracing cores versus 8 for the Arc A380E, a 3x advantage that should translate to better ray tracing performance in supported titles. The NVIDIA card's tensor cores (96 of them) provide additional acceleration for DLSS and AI-based features that the Intel card cannot match.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada is the superior performer in almost every technical category. It delivers three times the FP32 compute, roughly 51% higher texture and pixel rates, 38% more memory bandwidth, double the memory capacity, and three times the ray tracing cores. Its 5 nm process with 118.9M transistors per mm² demonstrates a denser, more advanced design.

The Intel Arc A380E is not without merits. It has a higher base clock (2000 MHz versus 1530 MHz), a simpler design with no tensor cores, and a larger physical footprint as a single-slot card. Its 75 W TDP is higher than the NVIDIA part's 50 W, but still low by absolute standards. The Arc A380E is end-of-life, while the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada remains active in production.

For embedded and mobile applications where power efficiency and compute density matter, the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada is the clear choice. Its 50 W TDP with 12.35 TFLOPS FP32 output gives it a performance-per-watt profile that the Arc A380E cannot match with 75 W and 4.096 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card is also newer in terms of architectural generation, despite being released earlier.

The Arc A380E still holds relevance for systems where its specific form factor, DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, or Intel-specific software stack is required. But for raw performance, the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada wins decisively.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A380E | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | DG2-128 | AD107 |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | Ada-MW |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 18,900 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 159 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 118.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 1530 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 2010 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 96 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 186.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 64 | 96 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 64.00 GPixel/s | 96.48 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 128.0 GTexel/s | 193.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.096 TFLOPS | 12.35 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) | 12.35 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.0 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-03-31 | 2023-03-20 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada wins in every performance-oriented category. It has higher FP32 and FP16 compute, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, more ray tracing cores, more tensor cores, higher memory bandwidth, larger memory capacity, and a faster boost clock. Its 5 nm process and higher transistor density indicate a more advanced manufacturing approach. The 50 W TDP with superior performance makes it the better choice for power-constrained embedded systems.

The Intel Arc A380E wins in specific niche areas. Its base clock of 2000 MHz is significantly higher than the NVIDIA part's 1530 MHz, which can be advantageous in workloads that run at locked base clocks. It has a standard single-slot form factor with 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it easier to integrate into desktop-style systems with multiple display connections. Its 75 W TDP is higher than the NVIDIA part but still low in absolute terms. The Arc A380E also has a wider physical footprint, which can aid passive cooling in some chassis designs.

For AI-accelerated workloads, the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada is the only option between the two, thanks to its 96 tensor cores. The Arc A380E has no tensor cores at all. For ray tracing, the NVIDIA card's 24 ray tracing cores versus 8 for Intel provides a clear advantage.

For developers targeting Vulkan 1.4 or DirectX 12 Ultimate, both cards are equally capable at the API level. For developers needing portable device dependent display outputs, the NVIDIA card fits that requirement. For developers needing fixed DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, the Intel card is the match.

The production status also matters. The NVIDIA card is active and will continue to receive support. The Intel card is end-of-life, meaning no future driver optimizations or bug fixes are planned. For long-term deployments, the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada is the safer choice.