Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no head-to-head benchmark scores for the Intel Arc A380E and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation. Both entries list empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and no nearest rival comparisons. Consequently, no exact performance deltas can be cited from the database. The absence of measured results means the analysis must rely entirely on the specified architectural and specification data.

The Intel Arc A380E operates with a base and boost clock of 2000 MHz, while the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation runs at a 930 MHz base and 1680 MHz boost. Raw clock rates alone do not determine performance, as the two designs differ fundamentally in scale. The Intel part provides 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, whereas the NVIDIA part delivers 32.69 TFLOPS, an eightfold difference in raw shader output. Pixel fill rates follow the same pattern: 64.00 GPixel/s for the Arc A380E versus 188.2 GPixel/s for the RTX 5000 Embedded. Texture rates show 128.0 GTexel/s against 510.7 GTexel/s.

The memory subsystem reinforces this separation. The Arc A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit interface, producing 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation carries 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, reaching 576.0 GB/s. That is roughly 3.1 times the bandwidth of the Intel card. The NVIDIA solution also supports FP16 at 32.69 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part halves its FP16 rate to 8.192 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio.

The transistor counts and die sizes show the physical disparity. The Arc A380E uses 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, fabricated on TSMC 6 nm. The RTX 5000 Embedded packs 45,900 million transistors onto 379 mm², using TSMC 5 nm. Transistor density climbs from 45.9 million per square millimeter on the Intel chip to 121.1 million per square millimeter on the NVIDIA chip. The NVIDIA part is not merely larger, it is denser by a factor of 2.6.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the measured data, the Intel Arc A380E holds advantages in a few discrete areas. Its 2000 MHz base clock exceeds the NVIDIA base clock of 930 MHz, and its 2000 MHz boost matches its base, whereas the NVIDIA boost sits at 1680 MHz. The Intel card is also a single-slot design with a length of 254 mm, a height of 127 mm, and a width of 20 mm. The NVIDIA part is listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor with no physical dimensions recorded. The Intel card lists four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the NVIDIA output configuration depends on the portable device.

The Arc A380E has a lower thermal design power at 75 W compared to the RTX 5000 Embedded's 120 W. It also carries a suggested power supply rating of 250 W, a field absent for the NVIDIA part. The Intel product is end-of-life, which may appeal to deployments needing a fixed, stable configuration, while the NVIDIA product remains active. The Intel part uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation wins decisively in every computational throughput category. It offers 9728 shading units against 1024, 304 texture mapping units against 64, and 112 raster output units against 32. Ray tracing cores number 76 on the NVIDIA chip versus 8 on the Intel chip. The NVIDIA part also includes 304 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the Arc A380E specification. FP32 compute is 32.69 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 32.69 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS.

Memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth all favor the NVIDIA part. The 16 GB frame buffer with 256-bit bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth provides substantially more headroom for large datasets and high-resolution textures than the 6 GB, 96-bit, 186.0 GB/s configuration of the Intel card.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products built for different roles. The Intel Arc A380E, with its 75 W power draw, single-slot profile, and four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, appears designed for compact or embedded display systems where physical footprint and thermal envelope take priority. Its 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 186.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are modest but functional for lighter graphics workloads.

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation targets compute-heavy or high-end visualization tasks. Its 32.69 TFLOPS FP32, 32.69 TFLOPS FP16, 76 ray tracing cores, and 304 tensor cores position it as a much more capable processor for parallel workloads. The 16 GB memory capacity and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth support larger models and higher-resolution rendering than the Intel part can handle.

From the recorded specifications, any workload requiring substantial shader throughput, ray tracing, or tensor operations should select the NVIDIA part. The Intel part suits scenarios where power consumption, slot width, or display connectivity are the primary constraints. Neither product has benchmark scores in the database, so performance rankings relative to other GPUs cannot be established. The percentile field for both is 50 against all GPUs, but with zero average scores, that percentile carries no verified meaning.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 32.69 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc A380E provides 4.096 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is roughly eight times higher.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 186.0 GB/s bandwidth via a 96-bit bus, while the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation reaches 576.0 GB/s using a 256-bit bus. The NVIDIA bandwidth is approximately 3.1 times higher.

Q: What is the difference in ray tracing capability?

A: The Intel Arc A380E includes 8 ray tracing cores, whereas the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation includes 76 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part also has 304 tensor cores, a feature not listed for the Intel part.

Q: Are the power requirements the same?

A: No. The Intel Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation has a TDP of 120 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which product uses a smaller process node?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation uses TSMC 5 nm, while the Intel Arc A380E uses TSMC 6 nm. The NVIDIA die is larger at 379 mm² versus 157 mm² but also denser at 121.1M transistors per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380E support the same APIs as the NVIDIA part?

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

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A380E is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist generation for Arc 3. Its chip is designated DG2-128. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with an AD103 chip, listed as part of the Ada-MW generation. The Intel part is fabricated on TSMC 6 nm, the NVIDIA part on TSMC 5 nm.

The Intel processor contains 7,200 million transistors over 157 mm², yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA processor contains 45,900 million transistors over 379 mm², with a density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip has 9728 shading units, 304 texture mapping units, 112 raster output units, 76 ray tracing cores, and 304 tensor cores. The Intel chip has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 raster output units, and 8 ray tracing cores, with no tensor core listing.

The memory controllers differ accordingly: the Intel part uses a 96-bit GDDR6 interface, the NVIDIA part a 256-bit GDDR6 interface. Memory clock rates also diverge, with the Intel memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) and the NVIDIA memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The Intel part supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while the NVIDIA part runs FP16 at 1:1. The pixel and texture rates scale with the larger shader and ROP counts on the NVIDIA chip.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

• Process node: Intel Arc A380E uses 6 nm, NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded uses 5 nm.
• Transistor count: 7,200 million versus 45,900 million.
• Die size: 157 mm² versus 379 mm².
• Transistor density: 45.9M per mm² versus 121.1M per mm².
• Base clock: 2000 MHz versus 930 MHz.
• Boost clock: 2000 MHz versus 1680 MHz.
• Memory clock: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: 6 GB versus 16 GB.
• Memory bus width: 96 bit versus 256 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s.
• Shading units: 1024 versus 9728.
• Texture mapping units: 64 versus 304.
• Raster output units: 32 versus 112.
• Ray tracing cores: 8 versus 76.
• Tensor cores: not listed versus 304.
• Pixel rate: 64.00 GPixel/s versus 188.2 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 128.0 GTexel/s versus 510.7 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: 4.096 TFLOPS versus 32.69 TFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 32.69 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: 75 W versus 120 W.
• Slot width: Single-slot versus IGP.
• Power connectors: None for both.
• Suggested PSU: 250 W for Intel, not listed for NVIDIA.
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16.
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.0 versus Portable Device Dependent.
• Dimensions: Intel: 254 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width. NVIDIA: not listed.
• 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.
• Launch MSRP: Neither product has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.