Intel Arc A380E x2 vs Intel Arc Pro A60 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for the Intel Arc A380E x2 versus the Intel Arc Pro A60. The A380E x2 has no recorded benchmark entries at all, while the Arc Pro A60 has two recorded entries: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 63,485 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 57,166. The A380E x2 therefore cannot be placed against the Pro A60 in any measured test, and the win count stands at zero for both cards.

What the data does show is where the Arc Pro A60 sits among all recorded GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 60,326 places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs in the database. For context, its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 with an average score of 60,347 (a delta of 0 percent), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 at 60,140 (0.3 percent ahead of the Pro A60), the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M at 61,896 (2.5 percent behind the Pro A60), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (2.8 percent ahead of the Pro A60). These deltas are small, indicating the Pro A60 sits in a tightly contested performance band.

Since the A380E x2 has no measured scores, the available comparison is structural rather than empirical. The Pro A60 delivers roughly double the shading units, texture units, and render outputs of the A380E x2, and its FP32 throughput of 8.397 TFLOPS is more than double the A380E x2's 4.096 TFLOPS. The memory subsystem also diverges: the Pro A60 carries 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the A380E x2 has 6 GB on a 96-bit bus for 186.0 GB/s. These are the largest numerical gaps between the two cards.

The recorded Geekbench scores for the Pro A60 suggest a card that performs well above the median GPU, but without corresponding A380E x2 scores, no relative performance claim can be made from direct measurement.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380E x2 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The A380E x2 has an empty benchmarks array, so no Geekbench or other scores are recorded for it.

Q: What benchmark results exist for the Intel Arc Pro A60?

A: The Pro A60 has two recorded scores: 63,485 in Geekbench OpenCL and 57,166 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 60,326.

Q: How does the Arc Pro A60 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: Its average score of 60,326 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347, 0 percent delta), 0.3 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140), 2.5 percent behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (61,896), and 2.8 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657).

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Arc Pro A60 has 384.0 GB/s from 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The A380E x2 has 186.0 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus.

Q: Are both cards built on the same architecture and process node?

A: Yes. Both use Intel's Xe-HPG architecture and are fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The A380E x2 uses the DG2-128 chip, while the Pro A60 uses the DG2-256 chip.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The A380E x2 is listed as end-of-life, while the Arc Pro A60 is listed as active.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same Xe-HPG architecture and TSMC 6 nm process, but the silicon underneath differs substantially. The A380E x2 is built on the DG2-128 chip, which contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The Arc Pro A60 uses the DG2-256 chip, which packs 11,500 million transistors into a 269 mm² die, for a density of 42.8M per mm². The larger chip is not simply a scaled copy; the density is slightly lower, suggesting a different layout or additional logic blocks.

The A380E x2 belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, while the Pro A60 is from the Alchemist (Pro Series) generation. Both are Alchemist-family parts, but Intel positions them in different market segments. The A380E x2 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The Pro A60 doubles all of those: 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 RT cores. Neither card has tensor cores listed in the database.

The display output configuration also differs. The A380E x2 provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the Pro A60 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A380E x2 has a predecessor listed as Xe Graphics and a successor as Battlemage, while the Pro A60 has neither predecessor nor successor recorded.

Clock behavior is markedly different. The A380E x2 runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The Pro A60 has a much lower base clock of 900 MHz but a higher boost of 2050 MHz, indicating a wider dynamic range. Its memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The Pro A60's boost clock is only 50 MHz higher than the A380E x2's fixed clock, but its base clock is 1,100 MHz lower, which is a significant architectural choice.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based solely on the recorded data:

• Chip: DG2-128 (A380E x2) vs. DG2-256 (Pro A60)
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 3) vs. Alchemist (Pro Series)
• Transistors: 7,200 million vs. 11,500 million
• Die size: 157 mm² vs. 269 mm²
• Transistor density: 45.9M / mm² vs. 42.8M / mm²
• Base clock: 2000 MHz vs. 900 MHz
• Boost clock: 2000 MHz vs. 2050 MHz
• Memory clock: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) vs. 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 6 GB vs. 12 GB
• Memory bus width: 96 bit vs. 192 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s vs. 384.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 1024 vs. 2048
• TMUs: 64 vs. 128
• ROPs: 32 vs. 64
• RT cores: 8 vs. 16
• Pixel rate: 64.00 GPixel/s vs. 131.2 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 128.0 GTexel/s vs. 262.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 4.096 TFLOPS vs. 8.397 TFLOPS
• FP16: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) vs. 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1)
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs. none listed
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 vs. PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 vs. 4x DisplayPort 2.0
• Dimensions: 265 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width vs. not recorded
• Production status: End-of-life vs. Active
• Release date: 2024-03-31 vs. 2023-06-05
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics vs. none listed
• Successor: Battlemage vs. none listed

Fields that are identical: manufacturer (Intel), architecture (Xe-HPG), process node (6 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory type (GDDR6), TDP (130 W), slot width (single-slot), suggested PSU (300 W), DirectX support (12 Ultimate 12_2), OpenGL support (4.6), Vulkan support (1.4), and launch MSRP (not recorded for either).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro A60 wins on every measured or computed capability that appears in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 8.397 TFLOPS is more than double the A380E x2's 4.096 TFLOPS, and its FP16 rate of 16.79 TFLOPS is likewise double the A380E x2's 8.192 TFLOPS. The pixel rate of 131.2 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate of 262.4 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s confirm that the Pro A60 is designed to sustain higher fill rates across the board.

The memory advantage is equally decisive. The Pro A60's 384.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the A380E x2's 186.0 GB/s, and its 12 GB capacity doubles the 6 GB on the A380E x2. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited, such as high-resolution texture streaming or large compute buffers, the Pro A60 has a clear structural edge.

The A380E x2 does have one practical advantage: its fixed clock of 2000 MHz for both base and boost means no clock ramping variability, and its 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs suggest a design aimed at multi-display deployments. Its end-of-life status, however, means it is no longer a current product. The Pro A60, by contrast, is listed as active, has a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus the A380E x2's x8, and does not require a power connector, which simplifies installation in systems where cable routing is constrained.

In the database's percentile ranking, the Pro A60 sits at the 88th percentile of all GPUs, while the A380E x2 has no percentile above its default 50th-percentile placement with an average score of zero. The measured data only exists for the Pro A60, and that data places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and AMD Radeon Pro-class parts in average score.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a single conclusion: the Intel Arc Pro A60 is the stronger card by every measurable specification. It doubles the shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, memory capacity, memory bus width, and memory bandwidth of the A380E x2. Its FP32 performance of 8.397 TFLOPS is more than twice the A380E x2's 4.096 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate and texture rate are both roughly double. It has a higher boost clock, a wider PCIe interface, and an active production status. The A380E x2 is end-of-life and has no recorded benchmark scores.

The A380E x2's only distinguishing feature is its fixed 2000 MHz clock and the 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. For a system that needs many display outputs from a single card, that configuration is unusual. But the card's compute and memory resources are far below the Pro A60's, and its end-of-life status means it is not a current product.

The Pro A60's average benchmark score of 60,326, at the 88th percentile, places it in company with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (delta of 0 percent) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (0.3 percent ahead). Those deltas are within a rounding error, so the Pro A60's performance is effectively on par with those parts in the recorded Geekbench tests. The A380E x2 cannot be assessed on the same basis because it has no scores.

For a workload that demands compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and active driver support, the Arc Pro A60 is the only defensible choice from the data. For a deployment that specifically requires eight mini-DisplayPort outputs and a fixed clock, the A380E x2 has a niche, but it is end-of-life and offers half the memory and half the fill rates. The verdict is straightforward: the Pro A60 wins on all measured and specified performance metrics, and the A380E x2's only advantages are the display output count and the absence of a power connector requirement, which are not performance wins.