Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two GPUs compared in this analysis?

A: The database compares the Intel Arc A380E, a discrete graphics card from Intel based on the DG2-128 chip, against the NVIDIA Rubin GPU, a server-oriented accelerator from NVIDIA built around the GR100 chip.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a higher boost clock at 2267 MHz, while the Intel Arc A380E has a boost clock of 2000 MHz. However, the Intel part has a higher base clock at 2000 MHz versus 700 MHz for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has significantly more memory, equipped with 288 GB of HBM4, whereas the Intel Arc A380E comes with 6 GB of GDDR6. The memory bus width also differs greatly, with the NVIDIA part using a 16384-bit bus and the Intel part using a 96-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has a higher pixel rate at 64.00 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU records a pixel rate of 54.41 GPixel/s. This is notable given the NVIDIA part's much larger scale in other metrics.

Q: How do the two GPUs differ in production status and release timing?

A: The Intel Arc A380E is marked as end-of-life with a release date of March 31, 2024. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is listed as active and carries a release date of December 31, 2025.

Q: What are the API support differences between the two?

A: The Intel Arc A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no API support listed, with all three fields marked as N/A.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural philosophies and market targets. The Intel Arc A380E is built on the Xe-HPG architecture and belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, using the DG2-128 chip. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the Rubin architecture and belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation, built around the GR100 chip.

The manufacturing process separates them clearly. Intel uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, while NVIDIA uses a 3 nm process, also from TSMC. The transistor counts are dramatically different: the Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a die size of 157 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip contains 336,000 million transistors on a die size of 1456 mm², yielding a density of 230.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The density difference indicates that the NVIDIA process packs more than five times as many transistors per area.

Compute resources differ in scale and configuration. The Intel Arc A380E has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units, 896 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units, but no dedicated ray tracing cores are listed. Instead, the NVIDIA part includes 896 tensor cores, which the Intel part does not have at all. The lack of RT cores on the NVIDIA part is a notable architectural distinction, as ray tracing on that platform would be handled through its tensor cores or other compute paths.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Intel card uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA accelerator uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus, delivering 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth. The bandwidth difference is over 118 times in favor of the NVIDIA part. The process node difference also contributes to power characteristics, with the Intel part rated at 75 W TDP and the NVIDIA part rated at 2300 W TDP.

The form factors reflect their intended deployments. The Intel card is a single-slot, 254 mm long, 127 mm tall, and 20 mm wide board with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA part is an SXM Module with a suggested PSU of 2700 W, and it has no display outputs. The Intel card provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The bus interfaces also differ, with Intel using PCIe 4.0 x8 and NVIDIA using PCIe 6.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows no direct benchmark entries in the head-to-head comparison, and both parts record an average benchmark score of zero. However, the raw compute specifications provide a clear basis for comparing theoretical performance. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at roughly 31.7 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part. In FP16, the NVIDIA part reaches 260.0 TFLOPS, while the Intel part reaches 8.192 TFLOPS, a 31.7 times advantage as well.

Texture processing shows a similar gap. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s, compared to 128.0 GTexel/s for the Intel Arc A380E. That is approximately 15.9 times higher on the NVIDIA side. The pixel rate, however, tells a different story. The Intel part achieves 64.00 GPixel/s, which is higher than the NVIDIA part's 54.41 GPixel/s. The Intel card leads by about 17.6 percent in pixel fill rate, which is a meaningful advantage for rasterization-heavy workloads that depend on ROP throughput.

Memory bandwidth is where the NVIDIA part dominates most decisively. The 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth on the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is roughly 118.8 times the 186.0 GB/s available on the Intel Arc A380E. This enormous bandwidth advantage is consistent with the NVIDIA part's intended server role, where large memory pools and high-bandwidth access are critical for AI training and inference workloads. The Intel part's 186.0 GB/s is adequate for its 6 GB memory pool and 96-bit bus, but it is in a different performance class entirely.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel Arc A380E has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, indicating a fixed clock with no boost headroom. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost clock of 2267 MHz, which means the NVIDIA part can scale its clock up by more than three times under load. This boost behavior is typical of a large, power-hungry accelerator that relies on thermal and power management to reach peak performance.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the Intel Arc A380E and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU:

• Chip: DG2-128 versus GR100
• Architecture: Xe-HPG versus Rubin
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 3) versus Server Rubin (Rxx)
• Process node: 6 nm versus 3 nm
• Transistors: 7,200 million versus 336,000 million
• Die size: 157 mm² versus 1456 mm²
• Transistor density: 45.9M / mm² versus 230.8M / mm²
• Base clock: 2000 MHz versus 700 MHz
• Boost clock: 2000 MHz versus 2267 MHz
• Memory clock: 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective versus 2695 MHz 10.8 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 6 GB versus 288 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM4
• Memory bus width: 96 bit versus 16384 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s versus 22.1 TB/s
• Shading units: 1024 versus 28672
• TMUs: 64 versus 896
• ROPs: 32 versus 24
• RT cores: 8 versus none listed
• Tensor cores: none versus 896
• Pixel rate: 64.00 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 128.0 GTexel/s versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s
• FP32: 4.096 TFLOPS versus 130.0 TFLOPS
• FP16: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 75 W versus 2300 W
• Slot width: Single-slot versus SXM Module
• Power connectors: None versus not listed
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 2700 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 6.0 x16
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.0 versus no outputs
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A
• OpenGL: 4.6 versus N/A
• Vulkan: 1.4 versus N/A
• Dimensions: 254 mm / 127 mm / 20 mm versus not listed
• Production status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release date: March 31, 2024 versus December 31, 2025
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics versus Server Blackwell
• Successor: Battlemage versus none listed

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380E wins in areas tied to its role as a client-side graphics card. Its pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s exceeds the NVIDIA Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s, which indicates an advantage in pixel-bound rasterization scenarios. The Intel part also offers display outputs, with 4x DisplayPort 2.0, making it usable for direct video output, while the NVIDIA part has no display outputs at all. The Intel card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it a full API stack for consumer and workstation graphics applications. The NVIDIA part lists no API support. The Intel card's lower power envelope, 75 W versus 2300 W, also makes it deployable in systems with modest power delivery, and its single-slot, 254 mm length form factor fits standard desktop chassis. The base clock of 2000 MHz is also higher than the NVIDIA part's 700 MHz, which can matter for latency-sensitive tasks that do not benefit from boost scaling.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins decisively in compute throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 performance is roughly 31.7 times the Intel part's 4.096 TFLOPS, and its 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 output is similarly dominant. The 288 GB memory pool is 48 times the Intel part's 6 GB, and the 22.1 TB/s bandwidth is over 118 times higher. The 896 tensor cores provide a dedicated path for matrix operations, which the Intel part lacks entirely. The texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s is about 15.9 times the Intel part's 128.0 GTexel/s, making the NVIDIA accelerator far stronger for texture-heavy workloads. The NVIDIA part also uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, which offers a newer and wider bus compared to the Intel part's PCIe 4.0 x8. The Rubin GPU's active production status and 2025 release date indicate a current-generation server product, while the Intel Arc A380E is end-of-life.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The Intel Arc A380E suits client-side graphics, display output, and rasterization-bound tasks where its higher pixel rate and API support matter. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU targets server-side acceleration, large-scale compute, and memory-intensive workloads where its massive compute, tensor core, and bandwidth advantages are decisive. The two parts are not direct substitutes, and the benchmark data, while sparse, aligns with their divergent architectural roles.