Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains benchmark results only for the NVIDIA RTX A400. The Intel Arc A380E has no benchmark entries in the database, which limits direct numeric comparison. The RTX A400's average benchmark score is 6078, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, scores 6077, a delta of 0%. The Quadro P2000 sits at 6049, 0.5% behind. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 posts 6117, 0.6% ahead. The AMD Radeon 760M trails at 6019, 1% behind the RTX A400.

Looking at the RTX A400's individual test results, the strongest showing is in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 22844. Its Geekbench Vulkan score reaches 22237. Passmark results show a different pattern: DirectX 9 returns 87, DirectX 11 returns 37, DirectX 10 returns 32, and DirectX 12 returns 27. The 2D graphics test produces 899, while the 3D test produces 5983. Compute performance in Passmark measures 2557. These numbers indicate that the RTX A400's compute-oriented workloads (OpenCL, Vulkan) score far higher than its legacy DirectX rasterization tests. The DirectX 9 score of 87 exceeds the DirectX 12 score of 27 by more than three times, suggesting the architecture favors older API paths in this specific benchmark suite.

The Intel Arc A380E, with no recorded benchmark scores, cannot be compared directly on any test. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 50, which is higher than the RTX A400's 35. However, percentile without a score does not translate into a performance advantage. The data shows that the RTX A400 sits in a tight cluster of low-end GPUs, all within roughly 1% of each other. The A380E's percentile of 50 implies a mid-pack position in the database, but no test results confirm this.

Architecture Differences

The two cards use fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Arc A380E is built on Xe-HPG architecture, generation Alchemist (Arc 3), using the DG2-128 chip. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, housing 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. Transistor density measures 45.9 million per mm². The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses Ampere architecture, generation Workstation Ampere (Ax000), with the GA107 chip. It is fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung, containing 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Transistor density is 43.5 million per mm². Intel's process advantage in density is modest, about 5.5% higher, but the NVIDIA chip has more total transistors by about 20.8%.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The A380E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The RTX A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. The Intel card's boost clock is roughly 13.5% higher than NVIDIA's boost. Memory clocks also differ: the A380E uses 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective transfer, while the RTX A400 uses 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. Memory configurations diverge: the A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s. The Intel card delivers nearly double the memory bandwidth and 50% more capacity.

Compute resources: the A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 ray tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores. The Intel card has 33% more shading units, 167% more TMUs, 100% more ROPs, and 33% more ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card includes tensor cores (24), which the A380E lacks entirely. Pixel rate for the A380E is 64.00 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX A400. Texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 4.096 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS. FP16 differs in implementation: the A380E delivers 8.192 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS at 1:1, meaning it does not accelerate FP16 beyond its FP32 rate.

Power and physical specifications: the A380E has a TDP of 75 W, the RTX A400 has 50 W. Both are single-slot, neither requires power connectors, and both suggest a 250 W PSU. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs differ: the A380E has 4x DisplayPort 2.0, the RTX A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions differ significantly: the A380E is 254 mm long, 127 mm high, 20 mm wide. The RTX A400 is 163 mm long, 69 mm high, with no width listed. The Intel card is roughly 56% longer and 84% taller. API support is identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear split. For users who need raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or higher resolutions with larger framebuffers, the Intel Arc A380E has the structural advantage: 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.706 TFLOPS, 186.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s, and 6 GB memory versus 4 GB. Its pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s is more than double the RTX A400's 28.19 GPixel/s. Texture rate is similarly lopsided at 128.0 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. These are large margins, all in the A380E's favor.

For users who need tensor core acceleration, the RTX A400 is the only option of the two, since the A380E has no tensor cores at all. The RTX A400 also consumes 25 W less power (50 W versus 75 W) and occupies a much smaller physical footprint: 163 mm length versus 254 mm, 69 mm height versus 127 mm. The A380E is end-of-life in production status, while the RTX A400 is active. The RTX A400 has recorded benchmark scores; the A380E does not. Buyers who rely on validated benchmark data may prefer the RTX A400 for that reason alone. The A380E's 50th percentile versus the RTX A400's 35th suggests the Intel card sits higher in the overall distribution, but without scores, that percentile cannot be verified against specific workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A380E | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Process node | 6 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 8,700 million |

| Die size | 157 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 45.9M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 2000 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2000 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory bus width | 96 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 186.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1024 | 768 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Ray tracing cores | 8 | 6 |

| Tensor cores | None | 24 |

| Pixel rate | 64.00 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 128.0 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.096 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 50 W |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.0 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 254 mm (10 inches) | 163 mm (6.4 inches) |

| Height | 127 mm (5 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Width | 20 mm (0.8 inches) | Not listed |

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release date | 2024-03-31 | 2024-04-15 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Battlemage | Workstation Ada |

Both cards share: single-slot width, no power connectors, 250 W suggested PSU, PCIe 4.0 x8, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and GDDR6 memory type.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 186.0 GB/s, which is nearly double the RTX A400's 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Does the RTX A400 have tensor cores?

A: Yes, it has 24 tensor cores. The Intel Arc A380E has none.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The RTX A400 runs at 50 W, while the Intel Arc A380E runs at 75 W. Both suggest a 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS, versus 2.706 TFLOPS for the RTX A400.

Q: Are there recorded benchmark scores for the Intel Arc A380E?

A: No. The database contains benchmark results only for the RTX A400, whose average score is 6078.

Q: Which card is physically smaller?

A: The RTX A400 is 163 mm long and 69 mm high. The Intel Arc A380E is 254 mm long and 127 mm high.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380E wins on every measured compute and throughput specification. Its FP32 rate of 4.096 TFLOPS is 51% higher than the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. Its FP16 rate of 8.192 TFLOPS is triple the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s beats 96.00 GB/s by 94%. Texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s beats 42.29 GTexel/s by 203%. Pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s beats 28.19 GPixel/s by 127%. Memory capacity of 6 GB versus 4 GB gives it a 50% framebuffer advantage. Shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores all favor the A380E. Its fixed 2000 MHz boost clock runs 13.5% higher than the RTX A400's 1762 MHz boost. The A380E also uses a smaller, denser 6 nm TSMC process and supports DisplayPort 2.0, matching the RTX A400's API feature set for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins on efficiency and physical integration. Its 50 W TDP is 33% lower than the A380E's 75 W. Its dimensions of 163 mm by 69 mm make it suitable for compact chassis, versus the A380E's 254 mm by 127 mm board. It has 24 tensor cores, which the A380E cannot match. It is the only one of the two with an active production status. Its release date is 15 days later than the A380E's. It carries the only recorded benchmark scores in the database, with an average of 6078 and a 35th percentile placement. Its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average score, indicating a stable performance tier. The A380E's 50th percentile placement suggests it ranks higher in the overall database, but no benchmark scores exist to quantify that placement.

Use-case split: choose the Intel Arc A380E for workloads that demand raw shading throughput, high memory bandwidth, large framebuffers, or FP16 compute. Choose the NVIDIA RTX A400 for tasks that require tensor core acceleration, low power draw, compact physical fit, or validated benchmark results.