Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc A380E or the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0, and neither GPU has any head-to-head benchmark results listed. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical at 50 for both parts, indicating they occupy the same relative position in the overall distribution despite their vastly different specifications.

Without direct measurement data, the comparison must rely on the architectural specifications and theoretical compute capabilities recorded in the database. The NVIDIA part delivers 32.69 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 7.98 times the 4.096 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A380E. In FP16 compute, the gap narrows but remains substantial: NVIDIA provides 32.69 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while Intel provides 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA GPU also leads in texture rate at 510.7 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, a 3.99 times advantage, and in pixel rate at 188.2 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, a 2.94 times advantage.

Memory bandwidth shows a similar pattern. The RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 delivers 576.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the Arc A380E delivers 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit bus. That is a 3.10 times difference in bandwidth. The NVIDIA GPU also carries 16 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 6 GB on the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. Intel uses the DG2-128 chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. NVIDIA uses the AD103 chip based on Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the Ada-MW generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but on different process nodes: Intel uses 6 nm, while NVIDIA uses 5 nm.

The transistor counts diverge sharply. NVIDIA's AD103 packs 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. Intel's DG2-128 contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is 6.38 times larger in transistor count and 2.41 times larger in die area.

Compute resources differ across every category. The NVIDIA GPU has 9,728 shading units, 304 texture mapping units, and 112 raster output units. The Intel GPU has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA also fields 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores, while Intel lists 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. This means the RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 supports tensor-accelerated workloads such as deep learning inference and training, while the Arc A380E has no tensor core hardware recorded.

Clock speeds present an interesting contrast. Intel runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost clocks, which is higher than NVIDIA's 930 MHz base and 1680 MHz boost. Despite this clock advantage, Intel's lower core count results in far lower aggregate throughput. Memory clocks also differ: Intel runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective, while NVIDIA runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

The power envelope differs as well. Intel lists a TDP of 75 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while NVIDIA lists a TDP of 150 W with no suggested PSU recorded. NVIDIA's higher TDP is consistent with its larger die and higher throughput. Both cards draw power through the slot with no external power connectors listed.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to distinct use cases for each GPU. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 wins on raw compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and feature set. Its 32.69 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 16 GB memory, and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for compute-heavy embedded applications such as AI inference, scientific simulation, or high-resolution rendering. The presence of 304 tensor cores and 76 ray tracing cores adds hardware acceleration for neural networks and ray-traced graphics that the Intel part cannot match.

The Intel Arc A380E wins on power efficiency and physical integration. Its 75 W TDP is half that of the NVIDIA part, and it uses a standard single-slot form factor with a length of 254 mm and height of 127 mm. The NVIDIA GPU is listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dimensions recorded, meaning it is designed for direct board integration rather than as a discrete card. For embedded systems with tight power budgets or limited cooling, the Intel part's lower draw and conventional slot design could be preferable.

The Intel GPU also supports four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the NVIDIA GPU's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." For systems requiring multiple external displays over DisplayPort, the Arc A380E provides a clear connectivity advantage. The NVIDIA part relies on the host device for display connectivity, which may be acceptable in laptop or mobile workstation designs but less flexible for multi-monitor setups.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 delivers 32.69 TFLOPS, which is 7.98 times the 4.096 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A380E.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA GPU has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Intel GPU has 6 GB. The NVIDIA part also has a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the Intel part's 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380E have tensor cores?

A: No, the Intel GPU lists no tensor cores. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 has 304 tensor cores.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Both GPUs support ray tracing, but with different hardware resources. The NVIDIA GPU has 76 ray tracing cores, while the Intel GPU has 8.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 has a TDP of 150 W and no suggested PSU recorded.

Q: Are both GPUs using the same process node?

A: No. Intel uses a 6 nm TSMC process, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC process.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Shading Units: 1,024 (Intel) versus 9,728 (NVIDIA)
• TMUs: 64 (Intel) versus 304 (NVIDIA)
• ROPs: 32 (Intel) versus 112 (NVIDIA)
• RT Cores: 8 (Intel) versus 76 (NVIDIA)
• Tensor Cores: None (Intel) versus 304 (NVIDIA)
• FP32 Performance: 4.096 TFLOPS (Intel) versus 32.69 TFLOPS (NVIDIA)
• FP16 Performance: 8.192 TFLOPS 2:1 ratio (Intel) versus 32.69 TFLOPS 1:1 ratio (NVIDIA)
• Pixel Rate: 64.00 GPixel/s (Intel) versus 188.2 GPixel/s (NVIDIA)
• Texture Rate: 128.0 GTexel/s (Intel) versus 510.7 GTexel/s (NVIDIA)
• Memory Size: 6 GB (Intel) versus 16 GB (NVIDIA)
• Memory Bus Width: 96 bit (Intel) versus 256 bit (NVIDIA)
• Memory Bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s (Intel) versus 576.0 GB/s (NVIDIA)
• Memory Clock: 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective (Intel) versus 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective (NVIDIA)
• Base Clock: 2000 MHz (Intel) versus 930 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Boost Clock: 2000 MHz (Intel) versus 1680 MHz (NVIDIA)
• TDP: 75 W (Intel) versus 150 W (NVIDIA)
• Process Node: 6 nm (Intel) versus 5 nm (NVIDIA)
• Transistors: 7,200 million (Intel) versus 45,900 million (NVIDIA)
• Die Size: 157 mm² (Intel) versus 379 mm² (NVIDIA)
• Transistor Density: 45.9M / mm² (Intel) versus 121.1M / mm² (NVIDIA)
• Slot Width: Single-slot (Intel) versus IGP (NVIDIA)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 (Intel) versus PCIe 4.0 x16 (NVIDIA)
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.0 (Intel) versus Portable Device Dependent (NVIDIA)
• Dimensions: 254 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width (Intel) versus not recorded (NVIDIA)
• Suggested PSU: 250 W (Intel) versus not recorded (NVIDIA)
• Production Status: End-of-life (Intel) versus Active (NVIDIA)
• Release Date: 2024-03-31 (Intel) versus 2023-03-20 (NVIDIA)
• Chip: DG2-128 (Intel) versus AD103 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: Xe-HPG (Intel) versus Ada Lovelace (NVIDIA)
• Generation: Alchemist Arc 3 (Intel) versus Ada-MW (NVIDIA)
• Series: Not recorded (Intel) versus GeForce 50-series (NVIDIA)
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics (Intel) versus Ampere-MW (NVIDIA)
• Successor: Battlemage (Intel) versus Blackwell-MW (NVIDIA)

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 provides roughly eight times the FP32 throughput, over three times the memory bandwidth, and nearly triple the pixel rate of the Intel Arc A380E. It also carries 2.67 times more memory and adds tensor core support that the Intel part lacks entirely. For any workload that stresses compute throughput, memory capacity, or AI acceleration, the NVIDIA GPU is the stronger choice by a wide margin.

The Intel Arc A380E offers advantages in power consumption and physical form factor. Its 75 W TDP is half the NVIDIA part's 150 W, and its single-slot design with four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs provides straightforward multi-display connectivity in a standard PCIe card layout. The NVIDIA part, by contrast, is an IGP with no dimensions recorded and display outputs that depend on the host device, making it less suitable for applications that need discrete display ports.

The production status also favors NVIDIA, which lists the RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 as Active, while the Arc A380E is End-of-life. The NVIDIA GPU also has a newer successor listed (Blackwell-MW) and a larger die with higher transistor density, indicating a more advanced design overall.

For embedded systems where power efficiency, discrete display outputs, and a conventional card form factor are priorities, the Intel Arc A380E fits those requirements. For applications demanding maximum compute, memory bandwidth, ray tracing capability, tensor acceleration, and future longevity, the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 is the data-supported choice. The absence of benchmark scores means these conclusions rest entirely on architectural specifications, but those specifications are unambiguous about the performance gap between the two parts.