Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The data shows two very different design philosophies. The Intel Arc A380E is a fixed-function desktop card with a hard power ceiling, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is a laptop-class chip built for density and efficiency. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores in the database, so the comparison rests on architectural specifications, memory subsystems, and feature sets.

The Intel Arc A380E wins in situations where a discrete, self-contained graphics card is required. It is a single-slot, 254 mm long card with four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it suitable for multi-monitor workstation setups or compact chassis that can accept a full-height card. Its 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors mean it draws entirely from the PCIe slot, which simplifies installation in pre-existing systems without PSU upgrades. The card's 6 GB GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus delivers 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth, enough for 1080p-class workloads and light compute tasks.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation wins in mobility and compute density. It is an IGP (integrated graphics package) with no dimensions listed, designed to be soldered onto laptop motherboards. Its 50 W TDP is lower than the Intel card's 75 W, yet it delivers substantially higher raw throughput. The RTX 2000 Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x16, double the lane width of the Intel card's x8 connection. For portable workstations, the NVIDIA part is the only choice, as the Intel card cannot be installed in a laptop at all.

In raw compute, the NVIDIA part dominates. Its FP32 throughput of 12.99 TFLOPS is more than triple the Intel card's 4.096 TFLOPS. The RTX 2000 Mobile also has 3072 shading units versus 1024, 96 TMUs versus 64, 48 ROPs versus 32, and 24 RT cores versus 8. The NVIDIA chip also includes 96 tensor cores, while the Intel card has none listed. For AI inference, ray tracing, or FP32 compute, the NVIDIA part is categorically faster.

The Intel card retains advantages in display connectivity and physical form factor. Four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs exceed what most laptop GPUs can drive, and the single-slot design with no power connector makes it drop-in compatible with many desktop systems. The RTX 2000 Mobile's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the laptop manufacturer decides what ports are exposed.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The chip has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. Tensor cores are absent. The card's clock speeds are fixed: 2000 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, meaning no dynamic frequency scaling. Memory runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) across a 96-bit bus, producing 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip based on the Ada Lovelace architecture, from the Ada-MW generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 118.9 million per square millimeter, more than double the Intel part. The chip has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. Base clock is 1635 MHz, boost clock is 2115 MHz, so it has meaningful frequency headroom. Memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, producing 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The transistor count difference is stark: 18.9 billion versus 7.2 billion. Even with the smaller 5 nm node, the NVIDIA die is only 2 mm² larger (159 vs 157 mm²), which means the NVIDIA part packs nearly triple the logic into the same area. The FP16 rates also differ: Intel delivers 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while NVIDIA delivers 12.99 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). This means the NVIDIA part does not rely on reduced precision for its peak half-precision throughput, whereas the Intel card halves its FP16 rate relative to FP32.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use PCIe 4.0, though the Intel card uses x8 while NVIDIA uses x16. The Intel card is end-of-life, with a release date of 2024-03-31, while the NVIDIA part is active, released 2023-03-20. Intel's predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage. NVIDIA's predecessor is Ampere-MW and its successor is Blackwell-MW.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results for these two parts, so the comparison relies on computed specifications. The most significant delta is in FP32 throughput. The NVIDIA part delivers 12.99 TFLOPS versus Intel's 4.096 TFLOPS, a 3.17x advantage. In FP16, NVIDIA delivers 12.99 TFLOPS versus Intel's 8.192 TFLOPS, a 1.59x advantage. However, note that Intel's FP16 figure assumes a 2:1 ratio, meaning it achieves this by using half the FP32 rate. NVIDIA achieves its FP16 at 1:1, so its half-precision performance equals its single-precision performance.

Pixel fill rate favors NVIDIA: 101.5 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, a 1.59x advantage. Texture fill rate shows a larger gap: 203.0 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, a 1.59x advantage. The shading unit count (3072 vs 1024) is a 3x difference, while TMU count (96 vs 64) is 1.5x and ROP count (48 vs 32) is 1.5x. RT core count (24 vs 8) is 3x, and tensor cores exist only on NVIDIA (96 vs none).

Memory bandwidth favors NVIDIA: 256.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, a 1.38x advantage. The NVIDIA part also has a wider memory bus (128-bit vs 96-bit) and more memory capacity (8 GB vs 6 GB). The Intel card's base clock is higher (2000 MHz vs 1635 MHz), but its boost clock is lower (2000 MHz vs 2115 MHz). Because the Intel card has no boost range, its sustained clock equals its base clock. The NVIDIA part can boost 480 MHz above base, which contributes to its higher throughput.

Power efficiency favors NVIDIA. At 50 W TDP, the NVIDIA part delivers 12.99 TFLOPS, which is 0.26 TFLOPS per watt. The Intel card at 75 W delivers 4.096 TFLOPS, which is 0.055 TFLOPS per watt. That is a 4.7x efficiency advantage for NVIDIA. Even accounting for the fact that the Intel card is a desktop part with no power connector, the NVIDIA chip is dramatically more compute-efficient.

The transistor density difference (118.9M/mm² vs 45.9M/mm²) explains part of this. The NVIDIA chip uses a smaller 5 nm node versus Intel's 6 nm, and it packs 18.9 billion transistors into essentially the same die area. The result is a part that produces more than triple the FP32 throughput while consuming two-thirds the power.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is the faster part by every compute metric: FP32 (12.99 vs 4.096 TFLOPS), FP16 (12.99 vs 8.192 TFLOPS), pixel rate (101.5 vs 64.00 GPixel/s), texture rate (203.0 vs 128.0 GTexel/s), shading units (3072 vs 1024), RT cores (24 vs 8), and tensor cores (96 vs none). It also has more memory (8 GB vs 6 GB), wider bus (128-bit vs 96-bit), higher bandwidth (256.0 vs 186.0 GB/s), and lower TDP (50 W vs 75 W).

The Intel Arc A380E wins only in physical integration and display output. It is a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, no power connector, and a fixed 75 W draw. It can be installed in a desktop system with a 250 W suggested PSU and PCIe 4.0 x8 slot. The NVIDIA part has no dimensions, no display outputs of its own, and requires a laptop motherboard.

For a desktop workstation needing multiple DisplayPort 2.0 monitors and a simple drop-in card, the Intel Arc A380E is the only option between these two. For any workload involving FP32 compute, ray tracing, tensor operations, or mobile deployment, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is categorically superior. The performance gap is so large that the Intel card cannot compete on any compute benchmark, and its only advantages are form factor and port availability.

The production status also matters. The Intel card is end-of-life with a successor (Battlemage) already named. The NVIDIA part is active with a successor (Blackwell-MW) named. For new designs, the NVIDIA part has a longer expected availability window.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 12.99 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. NVIDIA is 3.17x faster.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380E have tensor cores?

A: No. The Intel card lists no tensor cores. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile has 96 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The NVIDIA part has 256.0 GB/s across a 128-bit bus, while the Intel card has 186.0 GB/s across a 96-bit bus. NVIDIA has 1.38x the bandwidth and 2 GB more memory (8 GB vs 6 GB).

Q: Which GPU draws less power?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile has a 50 W TDP, while the Intel Arc A380E has a 75 W TDP. NVIDIA delivers higher performance at lower power.

Q: Can the Intel Arc A380E be used in a laptop?

A: No. It is a single-slot desktop card with dimensions of 254 mm length, 127 mm height, and 20 mm width. It has four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and no power connector. The NVIDIA part is an IGP designed for portable devices.

Q: What API support do both GPUs share?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A380E | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation |

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

| Chip | DG2-128 | AD107 |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ada Lovelace |

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

| Process node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| 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 | 1635 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2000 MHz | 2115 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 6 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| 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 |

| RT cores | 8 | 24 |

| Tensor cores | None | 96 |

| Pixel rate | 64.00 GPixel/s | 101.5 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 128.0 GTexel/s | 203.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.096 TFLOPS | 12.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) | 12.99 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 50 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| 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 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Ampere-MW |

| Successor | Battlemage | Blackwell-MW |