Intel Arc A380E x2 vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

The Intel Arc A380E x2 and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 occupy opposite ends of Intel’s graphics spectrum. The former is a compact, dual-card configuration aimed at embedded and edge visual workloads, while the latter is a monolithic data center compute accelerator. The recorded data shows a fundamental split in design philosophy: the Arc A380E x2 leverages a pair of small, efficient dies, whereas the Max 1100 is a single, massive processor with a vastly larger memory subsystem. This analysis walks through the quantitative differences and qualitative implications based solely on the database specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two products, as the `headToHeadBenchmarks` array is empty. Consequently, a direct comparison of measured performance in specific applications is not possible from the available data. The wins are defined entirely by the raw specification differences, which are stark.

The most decisive advantage for the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 lies in raw compute throughput. The Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is more than five times the 4.096 TFLOPS offered by a single Arc A380E. Even when combining the two A380E cards in the x2 configuration, the aggregate FP32 throughput reaches only 8.192 TFLOPS, still representing a 2.7x deficit against the Max 1100. The gap is even more pronounced in FP16 work: the Max 1100 provides 22.22 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Arc A380E’s FP16 rate of 8.192 TFLOPS is achieved via a 2:1 shader operation, meaning the Max 1100 holds a 2.7x lead over the dual-card setup in true half-precision throughput as well.

Texture processing follows the same pattern. The Max 1100’s texture rate of 694.4 GTexel/s is more than double the combined 256.0 GTexel/s of the two A380E cards (each card produces 128.0 GTexel/s). This indicates a substantial advantage in geometry and fill-rate-bound workloads for the data center part. Conversely, the Arc A380E x2 wins decisively in pixel output. Each A380E has a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, so the dual-card configuration reaches 128.00 GPixel/s. The Max 1100, by contrast, is recorded with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and has no ROPs (0), meaning it is not architecturally designed for traditional rasterization output. For any workload that requires direct framebuffer generation, the Arc A380E x2 is the only functional option in this pairing.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story to compute. The Max 1100 has 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM2e memory, while each Arc A380E provides 186.0 GB/s, totaling 372.0 GB/s for the x2 setup. The Max 1100’s bandwidth is 3.3x higher than the combined Arc configuration, a critical factor for large data sets and compute kernels that are memory-bound. However, the Arc A380E x2 counters with a higher clock speed: 2000 MHz base and boost, versus the Max 1100’s 1000 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost. This clock advantage does not translate to overall performance supremacy, but it does indicate lower latency per operation and a different efficiency profile for the smaller chip.

FAQ

Q: Which product has a larger memory capacity?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e memory. Each Intel Arc A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory, so the x2 configuration provides a combined 12 GB, still far less than the Max 1100.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The Max 1100 has 7168 shading units. A single Arc A380E has 1024 shading units, and the x2 configuration doubles this to 2048, which remains a 3.5x deficit to the Max 1100.

Q: Do both products support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Arc A380E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Max 1100 supports only DirectX 12 (12_1). The Arc part also lists Vulkan 1.4 support, whereas the Max 1100 lists no Vulkan support in the database.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: Each Arc A380E has a TDP of 130 W, so the x2 configuration consumes a combined 260 W. The Max 1100 has a TDP of 300 W, which is 40 W higher than the dual-card setup.

Q: How does the bus interface compare?

A: The Arc A380E uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Max 1100 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The Max 1100’s interface offers more lanes and a newer standard, providing higher host transfer potential.

Q: Are there any display outputs on the Max 1100?

A: No. The Max 1100 has no display outputs. The Arc A380E provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs per card, making it suitable for multi-display configurations.

Architecture Differences

The two products are built on fundamentally different architectures and process technologies. The Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip, based on the Xe-HPG architecture, and belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Max 1100, in contrast, uses the Ponte Vecchio chip, based on Generation 12.5 architecture, and is a Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) part. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. This process difference is notable: the A380E’s chip is denser in terms of transistor packing per square millimeter at 45.9M / mm², while the Max 1100 achieves 78.1M / mm² despite the larger node, because of its sheer scale.

The physical dimensions of the silicon reflect their divergent purposes. The Arc A380E’s DG2-128 die measures 157 mm² and contains 7,200 million transistors. The Max 1100’s Ponte Vecchio die measures 1280 mm² and contains 100,000 million transistors. The Max 1100’s die is over eight times larger in area and holds nearly fourteen times more transistors. This scale difference drives the compute gap.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Arc A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s per card. The Max 1100 uses 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 1.23 TB/s. The bus width difference is enormous, and the HBM2e implementation is clearly optimized for data center bandwidth demands. The Arc A380E’s GDDR6 is clocked at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the Max 1100’s memory runs at 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective), a much lower clock that is compensated by the massive bus width.

Feature support also diverges. The Arc A380E includes 8 ray tracing cores per card, a 32 ROP count, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The Max 1100 includes 56 ray tracing cores but has 0 ROPs, supports only DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, and has no Vulkan entry. The A380E’s API set is more consumer and graphics-oriented, while the Max 1100’s feature set appears stripped of rasterization output in favor of compute.

Physical form factors reinforce the architectural split. The Arc A380E is a single-slot card, 265 mm long, 127 mm high, and 20 mm wide, using a 1x 6-pin power connector. The Max 1100 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long, using a 1x 12-pin power connector. The Max 1100 also requires a 700 W suggested PSU, versus 300 W for each A380E. The A380E’s 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs are absent entirely on the Max 1100.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is the clear choice for compute-intensive, data center scale workloads. Its FP32 throughput, texture rate, memory capacity, and bandwidth are all at least double, and in some cases more than triple, the combined capabilities of the Arc A380E x2 configuration. The Max 1100’s 22.22 TFLOPS FP32 versus the x2’s 8.192 TFLOPS, and its 48 GB versus 12 GB memory, confirm its dominance in processing large, parallel data sets. Its lack of ROPs and display outputs, however, makes it unsuitable for any task requiring direct visual output.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 is the only option for graphics output. It provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 per card, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, and has a pixel rate of 128.00 GPixel/s combined. Its 32 ROPs per card allow traditional rasterization, which the Max 1100 cannot perform. For embedded systems, multi-display signage, or any workload that ends in a framebuffer, the A380E x2 is the functional choice. Its lower TDP of 130 W per card also positions it as a more modest power draw option compared to the 300 W Max 1100.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every specification field. The process node differs: 6 nm TSMC for the A380E versus 10 nm Intel for the Max 1100. Transistor count differs: 7,200 million versus 100,000 million. Die size differs: 157 mm² versus 1280 mm². Base clock differs: 2000 MHz versus 1000 MHz. Boost clock differs: 2000 MHz versus 1550 MHz. Memory size differs: 6 GB per card versus 48 GB. Memory type differs: GDDR6 versus HBM2e. Bus width differs: 96-bit versus 8192-bit. Bandwidth differs: 186.0 GB/s versus 1.23 TB/s.

Shading units differ: 1024 versus 7168. TMUs differ: 64 versus 448. ROPs differ: 32 versus 0. RT cores differ: 8 versus 56. Pixel rate differs: 64.00 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. Texture rate differs: 128.0 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s. FP32 differs: 4.096 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS. FP16 differs: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 22.22 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP differs: 130 W versus 300 W. Slot width differs: single-slot versus dual-slot. Power connector differs: 1x 6-pin versus 1x 12-pin. Suggested PSU differs: 300 W versus 700 W. Bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs differ: 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus none. DirectX support differs: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). Vulkan support differs: 1.4 versus null.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins in every category related to raw compute and memory throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 rates are multiples of the x2 configuration. Its texture rate of 694.4 GTexel/s is ideal for compute-heavy geometry processing. Its 48 GB HBM2e memory with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth supports large in-memory data sets that the x2’s 12 GB total cannot approach. Its 56 ray tracing cores surpass the x2’s 16 combined cores. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides a wider host connection than the x2’s PCIe 4.0 x8. In any scenario where the output is a computation result, not a display image, the Max 1100 is the superior part.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 wins in all categories related to graphics output and display functionality. Its pixel rate of 128.00 GPixel/s combined, with 32 ROPs per card, enables direct framebuffer rendering. Its 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs per card support high-density multi-monitor setups. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support align with modern graphics APIs, which the Max 1100 lacks. Its higher base and boost clocks of 2000 MHz suggest lower latency per operation. Its single-slot form factor and lower TDP of 130 W per card allow for more flexible physical placement than the dual-slot, 300 W Max 1100. For any workload that must produce visible output, the A380E x2 is the only viable option in this comparison.