Intel Arc A380E x2 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 Comparison

The Verdict

The database records two end-of-life graphics cards with fundamentally different positioning. The Intel Arc A380E x2, a dual-GPU configuration built around the DG2-128 chip, delivers a combined compute footprint that targets multi-display and embedded visual workloads. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 is a single monolithic Ada Lovelace part aimed at mainstream desktop rendering. Based strictly on the recorded specifications, the RTX 4070 AD103 holds overwhelming advantages in raw compute, memory bandwidth, and feature throughput. The Arc A380E x2 offers a distinct advantage only in physical footprint and display output flexibility, with eight mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connections against a single HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The data indicates the NVIDIA card is the selection for any workload requiring substantial FP32, ray tracing, or tensor throughput. The Intel dual-card solution is the selection only for multi-display signal generation where its 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and single-slot width per card provide unique utility.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A380E x2 uses the Xe-HPG architecture implemented on the DG2-128 chip, fabricated at TSMC on a 6 nm process. The dual-card configuration doubles the per-card resources, yielding a combined 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 raster output units, and 16 ray tracing units across two 157 mm² dies. Each die contains 7,200 million transistors, for a combined 14,400 million across the pair, with a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm² per die. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD103 chip, fabricated at TSMC on a 5 nm process. The single die measures 379 mm² and contains 45,900 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 121.1 million per mm². It provides 5,888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, 64 raster output units, 46 ray tracing cores, and 184 tensor cores. The architecture also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The core architectural divergence lies in the tensor core count. The Intel part has no tensor core field recorded, while the NVIDIA part carries 184 tensor cores. Similarly, the FP16 throughput differs in ratio: the Arc A380E x2 delivers 8.192 TFLOPS per die with a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the RTX 4070 AD103 delivers 29.15 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. This indicates the NVIDIA architecture processes FP16 and FP32 at the same rate, whereas the Intel architecture halves FP16 throughput relative to FP32.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark arrays for both products are empty, so no direct runtime scores exist in the database. The analysis therefore relies on the specification-derived throughput values recorded for each part.

In FP32 compute, the RTX 4070 AD103 records 29.15 TFLOPS against 4.096 TFLOPS per Arc A380E die. For the dual-card configuration, the combined Intel FP32 reaches 8.192 TFLOPS, which still leaves the NVIDIA card approximately 3.56 times higher. The gap is more pronounced in FP16: the NVIDIA card delivers 29.15 TFLOPS, while the dual Intel cards deliver 16.384 TFLOPS combined. The RTX 4070 AD103 leads by roughly 1.78 times in FP16.

Texture throughput shows the NVIDIA card at 455.4 GTexel/s, compared to 128.0 GTexel/s per Intel die, or 256.0 GTexel/s combined. The NVIDIA part is about 1.78 times faster than the dual Intel configuration. Pixel throughput favors the NVIDIA card at 158.4 GPixel/s against 64.0 GPixel/s per Intel die, or 128.0 GPixel/s combined, a 1.24 times advantage.

Memory bandwidth is a decisive differentiator. The RTX 4070 AD103 records 504.2 GB/s over a 192-bit GDDR6X interface. Each Arc A380E die provides 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit GDDR6 interface, and the dual configuration reaches 372.0 GB/s combined. The NVIDIA card leads by 1.36 times. The NVIDIA memory clock runs at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective, while the Intel memory clock runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective. The Intel card uses a narrower bus but a higher physical memory clock.

The boost clock favors the NVIDIA card at 2475 MHz versus 2000 MHz for the Intel die. The base clock is 1920 MHz for NVIDIA and 2000 MHz for Intel, meaning the Intel part has no boost headroom and runs at a fixed 2000 MHz.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded field. Process node: 6 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 7,200 million per Intel die versus 45,900 million for NVIDIA. Die size: 157 mm² per Intel die versus 379 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor density: 45.9 million per mm² versus 121.1 million per mm².

Memory configuration: 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus per Intel die, versus 12 GB GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus for NVIDIA. Bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s per Intel die versus 504.2 GB/s for NVIDIA. Memory clock: 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective versus 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective.

Compute resources: 1024 shading units per Intel die (2048 combined) versus 5,888 for NVIDIA. TMUs: 64 per Intel die (128 combined) versus 184. ROPs: 32 per Intel die (64 combined) versus 64. Ray tracing cores: 8 per Intel die (16 combined) versus 46. Tensor cores: none recorded for Intel versus 184 for NVIDIA.

Pixel rate: 64.00 GPixel/s per Intel die versus 158.4 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 128.0 GTexel/s per Intel die versus 455.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.096 TFLOPS per Intel die versus 29.15 TFLOPS. FP16: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) per Intel die versus 29.15 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical: TDP 130 W per Intel die versus 200 W for NVIDIA. Slot width: single-slot per Intel card versus dual-slot for NVIDIA. Power connectors: 1x 6-pin per Intel card versus 1x 16-pin for NVIDIA. Suggested PSU: 300 W for Intel versus 550 W for NVIDIA. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 per Intel card versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Dimensions: Intel card 265 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width; NVIDIA card 240 mm length, 110 mm height, 40 mm width.

Display outputs: 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 for Intel versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for NVIDIA. Release dates: Intel on 2024-03-31, NVIDIA on 2024-02-29. The Intel card has no launch MSRP recorded; the NVIDIA card has a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

FAQ

Q: How does the dual Intel Arc A380E configuration compare to the RTX 4070 AD103 in raw FP32 compute?

A: The dual Intel configuration reaches 8.192 TFLOPS combined, while the RTX 4070 AD103 delivers 29.15 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card is approximately 3.56 times higher.

Q: Which card provides more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 records 504.2 GB/s over a 192-bit GDDR6X interface. Each Arc A380E die provides 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit GDDR6 interface, with the dual configuration reaching 372.0 GB/s combined. The NVIDIA card leads by 1.36 times.

Q: What is the ray tracing resource difference?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 has 46 ray tracing cores. Each Arc A380E die has 8 ray tracing cores, for 16 combined across the dual-card setup. The NVIDIA card has 46 versus 16 combined.

Q: How do the tensor core counts differ?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 has 184 tensor cores. No tensor core count is recorded for the Intel Arc A380E x2, indicating the Intel architecture does not provide the same tensor processing capability.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs per card. The RTX 4070 AD103 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Intel card leads in display output count and uses the newer DisplayPort 2.0 standard.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 has a TDP of 200 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. Each Arc A380E die has a TDP of 130 W, so the dual configuration totals 260 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The dual Intel setup consumes more total power but requires a smaller PSU recommendation.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 AD103 wins in every compute-heavy category. FP32 throughput at 29.15 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS combined places it firmly ahead for general rendering and simulation workloads. FP16 throughput at 29.15 TFLOPS versus 16.384 TFLOPS combined gives it a substantial edge in half-precision compute. Texture rate at 455.4 GTexel/s versus 256.0 GTexel/s combined favors NVIDIA for texture-bound scenes. Pixel rate at 158.4 GPixel/s versus 128.0 GPixel/s combined favors NVIDIA for fill-rate-limited rendering. The 184 tensor cores versus none recorded for Intel gives NVIDIA a definitive advantage in any tensor-accelerated workload. The 46 ray tracing cores versus 16 combined gives NVIDIA the lead in ray-traced rendering. Memory bandwidth at 504.2 GB/s versus 372.0 GB/s combined favors NVIDIA for large data sets and high-resolution textures. The 12 GB memory capacity versus 6 GB per Intel die favors NVIDIA for larger working sets.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 wins in specific non-compute categories. The 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs per card exceed the NVIDIA card's 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, making the Intel solution more suitable for multi-display wall installations and video wall controllers. The single-slot width and 20 mm thickness per Intel card contrast with the dual-slot, 40 mm width of the NVIDIA card, allowing denser physical mounting. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface per Intel card versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA is not a win but a lower lane requirement, which can simplify system integration. The Intel card's shorter height at 127 mm versus 110 mm for NVIDIA is not a win either, but the 265 mm length versus 240 mm is a minor NVIDIA advantage. The Intel card's 300 W suggested PSU versus 550 W for NVIDIA indicates lower system power supply requirements, although the dual-card total TDP of 260 W exceeds the NVIDIA single-card 200 W.

The data supports a clear split: the RTX 4070 AD103 is the compute and rendering choice, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 is the multi-display output choice. No benchmark scores exist in the database to override these specification-derived conclusions.