Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database does not contain any head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc A380E and the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. Consequently, there are no measured performance deltas, no percentile comparisons, and no rival score data to interpret. The avgBenchmarkScore for both GPUs is zero, and both sit at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning neither has an established performance ranking from actual benchmark submissions. Without recorded scores, any quantitative comparison of frame rates, compute throughput, or rendering speeds is impossible from the available data. The only performance-related figures present are theoretical peak rates derived from clock speeds and hardware counts, which are listed in the specification fields and discussed below.

What the data does show is a substantial difference in raw compute capacity. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation carries 4608 shading units against the Arc A380E's 1024, a 4.5x ratio. Its FP32 throughput is listed at 15.62 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the Intel part, a gap of approximately 3.8x. Texture rate tells a similar story: 244.1 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, meaning the NVIDIA part can fill textures at nearly double the rate. Pixel rate differs less dramatically, 81.36 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, a 1.27x advantage. These are theoretical maxima, not measured application performance, but they indicate the NVIDIA GPU has a far larger execution resource pool. The RTX 3000 also has 144 tensor cores and 36 RT cores, while the Arc A380E lists no tensor cores and only 8 RT cores, so ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads would rely on very different hardware paths.

Memory bandwidth favors the NVIDIA part as well. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation uses an 8 GB GDDR6 configuration on a 128-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s. The Arc A380E has 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s. That is a 37.6% bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA GPU, which matters for texture-heavy scenes, large datasets, and any workload that streams data through VRAM. The memory clock rates are listed as 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for the NVIDIA part and 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective for the Intel part, so the bandwidth gap comes from both higher memory clock and wider bus.

Clock speeds themselves complicate the comparison. The Intel Arc A380E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost, while the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation has a base clock of 1395 MHz and a boost of 1695 MHz. The Intel GPU operates at a higher sustained clock, but its much smaller shader array cannot compensate for the NVIDIA part's sheer width. In a raw arithmetic sense, the NVIDIA GPU's FP32 rate is 3.81 times higher despite running 18% slower at boost. This suggests the Intel part's efficiency per clock is lower, which is consistent with its older architecture and lower transistor count.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD106 chip on Ada Lovelace architecture, from the GeForce 30-series lineup. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but at different nodes: Intel's chip is 6 nm, NVIDIA's is 5 nm. The smaller node contributes to NVIDIA's higher transistor density, which is listed at 121.8 million transistors per square millimeter against Intel's 45.9 million per square millimeter. Total transistor counts differ starkly: 22,900 million for the NVIDIA chip versus 7,200 million for the Intel chip, a 3.18x difference. Die sizes are closer, 188 mm² versus 157 mm², so the NVIDIA chip packs far more logic into a modestly larger area.

The shader configuration diverges sharply. The Arc A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation has 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also includes 144 tensor cores and 36 RT cores, while Intel lists no tensor cores and only 8 RT cores. This means the RTX 3000 has dedicated hardware for both ray tracing and tensor operations, while the Arc A380E's ray tracing support relies on its 8 RT cores with no tensor counterpart. FP16 throughput illustrates another architectural split: Intel lists 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, whereas NVIDIA lists 15.62 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA GPU does not gain a throughput advantage by switching to half precision, while the Intel GPU doubles its rate, but the absolute FP16 number is still higher on the NVIDIA part.

Memory architecture differs in capacity and bus width. The Arc A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit interface, while the RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit interface. Bandwidth figures are 186.0 GB/s and 256.0 GB/s respectively. The Intel part's memory runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), and the NVIDIA part's at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Neither GPU uses HBM or other exotic memory types. Both support PCIe 4.0, but the Intel GPU connects via x8 lanes while the NVIDIA GPU uses x16 lanes, doubling the host interface bandwidth for the NVIDIA part.

Power and physical design also differ. The Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and is a single-slot card measuring 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. It uses no external power connectors, drawing power entirely from the slot. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 115 W, is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no length, height, or width dimensions listed, and also uses no power connectors. The NVIDIA part has a higher power envelope by 40 W, which aligns with its larger compute resource pool. Display outputs differ as well: the Intel card provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0, while the NVIDIA mobile part's outputs are labeled "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they depend on the laptop design. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature levels are identical.

Production status and release timing differ. The Intel Arc A380E is marked end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, and its predecessor is listed as Xe Graphics with a successor of Battlemage. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation is active, released on 2023-03-20, with predecessor Ampere-MW and successor Blackwell-MW. The Intel part was released roughly a year later but has already been discontinued, while the NVIDIA part remains in production. Neither has a launch MSRP in the data, so no price comparison is possible.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded specifications, the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation holds a decisive advantage in nearly every compute metric. Its FP32 throughput is 3.81x higher, its texture rate is 1.91x higher, its pixel rate is 1.27x higher, its memory bandwidth is 1.38x higher, and it has 4.5x the shading units, 2.25x the TMUs, 1.5x the ROPs, 4.5x the RT cores, and 144 tensor cores where the Intel part has none. The NVIDIA GPU also uses a more advanced 5 nm process with higher transistor density and nearly triple the total transistor count. For any workload that leverages raw shader throughput, ray tracing, or tensor operations, the data points unambiguously to the RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation as the more capable part.

The Intel Arc A380E has compensating traits. It runs at a higher fixed clock (2000 MHz versus 1695 MHz boost on the NVIDIA part), which narrows some gaps in per-clock efficiency. Its FP16 throughput doubles to 8.192 TFLOPS, offering a half-precision path that the NVIDIA part does not accelerate beyond its FP32 rate. It also has a lower TDP of 75 W against 115 W, making it a lower-power option, and it is a full add-in card with 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, suitable for desktop or workstation integration. The NVIDIA part, being an IGP with no fixed dimensions, is designed for mobile integration and offers no display output flexibility of its own.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload and form factor. If the task involves mobile computing, ray tracing, AI inference, or high-bandwidth data processing, the RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation is the stronger choice by every recorded metric. If the requirement is a low-power, single-slot desktop card with modern DisplayPort outputs and a modest 6 GB frame buffer, the Arc A380E fits that niche, but it cedes substantial compute performance. The data does not support any scenario where the Intel part outperforms the NVIDIA part in raw throughput or memory bandwidth. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation is the superior GPU in absolute terms, while the Arc A380E offers lower power draw and a fixed desktop form factor with dedicated display outputs.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Manufacturer: Intel versus NVIDIA
• Chip: DG2-128 versus AD106
• Architecture: Xe-HPG versus Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 3) versus Ada-MW
• Process node: 6 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: 7,200 million versus 22,900 million
• Die size: 157 mm² versus 188 mm²
• Transistor density: 45.9M / mm² versus 121.8M / mm²
• Base clock: 2000 MHz versus 1395 MHz
• Boost clock: 2000 MHz versus 1695 MHz
• Memory clock: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 6 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory bus width: 96 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 1024 versus 4608
• TMUs: 64 versus 144
• ROPs: 32 versus 48
• RT cores: 8 versus 36
• Tensor cores: null versus 144
• Pixel rate: 64.00 GPixel/s versus 81.36 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 128.0 GTexel/s versus 244.1 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 4.096 TFLOPS versus 15.62 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 15.62 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 75 W versus 115 W
• Slot width: Single-slot versus IGP
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus null
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.0 versus Portable Device Dependent
• Dimensions: 254 mm x 127 mm x 20 mm versus null
• Production status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release date: 2024-03-31 versus 2023-03-20
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics versus Ampere-MW
• Successor: Battlemage versus Blackwell-MW
• Series: null versus GeForce 30-series
• Launch MSRP: null for both, so no price field is available

Fields that are identical include the memory type (GDDR6 for both), the foundry (TSMC), DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, power connectors (None for both), and the percentileVsAllGpus value of 50 for both.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation, at 15.62 TFLOPS, which is 3.81x higher than the Intel Arc A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA part provides 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 8 GB GDDR6, while the Intel part provides 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit bus with 6 GB GDDR6. The NVIDIA GPU has a 37.6% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380E have tensor cores?

A: No, the database lists tensor cores as null for the Intel Arc A380E. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation has 144 tensor cores.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W, while the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 115 W, a 40 W difference.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, the Intel Arc A380E is marked end-of-life, while the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation is marked active.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation has 36 RT cores, while the Intel Arc A380E has 8 RT cores, a 4.5x difference.

Q: What display outputs does each GPU support?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation's outputs are labeled as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they depend on the host device.