Intel Arc A380E x2 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows two entirely different design philosophies with no overlapping strengths. The Intel Arc A380E x2 is a dual-card embedded configuration built around a modest DG2-128 chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q is a single high-end mobile GPU. Based on the specification deltas and architectural counts, the NVIDIA part wins decisively in raw compute, memory throughput, and feature density. The Intel configuration, however, holds advantages in physical footprint flexibility, display output capability, and power connector simplicity.

The RTX 4090 Max-Q delivers 28.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is roughly 6.9 times the 4.096 TFLOPS offered by the Intel Arc A380E x2. That gap alone places the NVIDIA part in a different performance class. The Intel part counters with a 130 W TDP versus the NVIDIA's 80 W TDP, meaning the NVIDIA achieves its far higher throughput while drawing less power. The NVIDIA part also uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors, making it suitable for portable systems, whereas the Intel card requires a single-slot bracket and a 1x 6-pin power connector.

For memory, the NVIDIA part offers 16 GB of GDDR6 across a 256 bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part provides 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s. That is a 3.1 times bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and large dataset operations.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 does hold one clear output advantage: it features 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the NVIDIA portable GPU's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. For multi-display embedded systems, the Intel configuration is explicitly equipped for that task. The NVIDIA part, by contrast, is designed for integration into laptops and portable devices where display routing is handled by the host system.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundry processes. Intel uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, built on TSMC's 6 nm process. NVIDIA uses Ada Lovelace with the AD103 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm node. The process node difference is small but relevant: 5 nm allows NVIDIA to pack 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. Intel's DG2-128 contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The RTX 4090 Max-Q contains 9,728 shading units, 304 texture mapping units, 112 render output units, 76 ray tracing cores, and 304 tensor cores. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores, with no tensor core count listed in the database. This means the NVIDIA part has 9.5 times the shading units, 4.75 times the TMUs, 3.5 times the ROPs, and 9.5 times the ray tracing cores.

Clock behavior also differs. Intel runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, which is unusual and indicates a fixed clock design for constant compute in embedded workloads. NVIDIA runs at 930 MHz base and 1455 MHz boost, a more conventional mobile clock curve that scales with thermal headroom. Memory clocks differ as well: Intel runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while NVIDIA runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

The NVIDIA part supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 28.31 TFLOPS. The Intel part reaches 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 but at a 2:1 ratio relative to its 4.096 TFLOPS FP32. This indicates NVIDIA has dedicated FP16 throughput, while Intel uses rate-limited execution. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity exists.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries for this pairing, and both parts have empty benchmark result lists. The analysis therefore relies on the recorded specification deltas, which are unambiguous.

In FP32 compute, the RTX 4090 Max-Q reaches 28.31 TFLOPS against 4.096 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc A380E x2, a 6.9 times advantage. In FP16 compute, NVIDIA again delivers 28.31 TFLOPS while Intel reaches 8.192 TFLOPS, a 3.5 times advantage. Pixel fill rate favors NVIDIA at 163.0 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, a 2.5 times lead. Texture fill rate shows the largest proportional gap: NVIDIA at 442.3 GTexel/s versus Intel's 128.0 GTexel/s, a 3.5 times advantage.

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator. The NVIDIA part delivers 576.0 GB/s across a 256 bit bus, while the Intel part manages 186.0 GB/s on a 96 bit bus. That is a 3.1 times bandwidth advantage. The NVIDIA part also has more than double the memory capacity at 16 GB versus 6 GB.

The power efficiency comparison is striking. NVIDIA achieves 28.31 TFLOPS at 80 W TDP, while Intel achieves 4.096 TFLOPS at 130 W TDP. Per watt, the NVIDIA part delivers roughly 0.354 TFLOPS per watt, while the Intel part delivers roughly 0.0315 TFLOPS per watt. That is an 11.2 times efficiency advantage for NVIDIA in FP32 throughput per watt, based directly on the recorded TDP and FP32 figures.

The Intel part does hold advantages in fixed-clock operation and output flexibility. Its 2000 MHz base and boost equality means predictable execution timing, which matters for deterministic embedded workloads. Its 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs far exceed NVIDIA's portable device dependent output scheme. The Intel card also uses a standard PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Process node: Intel uses 6 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Transistor count: 7,200 million versus 45,900 million. Die size: 157 mm² versus 379 mm². Transistor density: 45.9 million per mm² versus 121.1 million per mm². Base clock: 2000 MHz versus 930 MHz. Boost clock: 2000 MHz versus 1455 MHz. Memory clock: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration: 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus versus 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus. Bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s. Shading units: 1,024 versus 9,728. TMUs: 64 versus 304. ROPs: 32 versus 112. Ray tracing cores: 8 versus 76. Tensor cores: none listed versus 304.

Pixel rate: 64.00 GPixel/s versus 163.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 128.0 GTexel/s versus 442.3 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.096 TFLOPS versus 28.31 TFLOPS. FP16: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 28.31 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP: 130 W versus 80 W. Slot width: single-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 300 W for Intel, none listed for NVIDIA. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16.

Display outputs: 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus portable device dependent. Dimensions: Intel is 265 mm long, 127 mm high, and 20 mm wide; NVIDIA lists no dimensions. Production status: Intel is end-of-life, NVIDIA is active. Release dates: Intel on March 31, 2024, NVIDIA on January 2, 2023. Predecessors: Intel lists Xe Graphics, NVIDIA lists GeForce 30 Mobile. Successors: Intel lists Battlemage, NVIDIA lists GeForce 50 Mobile.

The Intel part has no launch MSRP recorded, and neither does the NVIDIA part, so no pricing data exists in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q delivers 28.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 6.9 times the 4.096 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A380E x2. The FP16 comparison shows 28.31 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS, a 3.5 times NVIDIA advantage.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The NVIDIA part has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory bandwidth is 3.1 times higher.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: The NVIDIA part produces 28.31 TFLOPS at an 80 W TDP. The Intel part produces 4.096 TFLOPS at a 130 W TDP. Based on these recorded figures, NVIDIA delivers roughly 11.2 times more FP32 throughput per watt.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 is a single-slot card measuring 265 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA RTX 4090 Max-Q is an IGP form factor with no power connectors and no recorded dimensions.

Q: How do display output capabilities differ?

A: The Intel part provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it suited for multi-display embedded systems. The NVIDIA part lists portable device dependent outputs, meaning display routing depends on the host portable device.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The Intel Arc A380E x2 is listed as end-of-life, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q is listed as active. The Intel part was released on March 31, 2024, and the NVIDIA part on January 2, 2023.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of use cases. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q is the superior choice for any workload requiring high compute throughput, large memory capacity, or high bandwidth. Its 28.31 TFLOPS FP32, 16 GB memory, and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth place it firmly ahead of the Intel Arc A380E x2 in rendering, machine learning, and graphics-intensive tasks. The 80 W TDP with no power connectors also makes it the more efficient and portable option.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 serves a narrower role. Its 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, fixed 2000 MHz clock, and standard PCIe 4.0 x8 interface make it a viable choice for embedded multi-display systems where output count matters more than raw throughput. Its end-of-life status and 130 W TDP, however, limit its long-term appeal.

For a portable device demanding maximum performance, the RTX 4090 Max-Q is the only rational selection. For a fixed embedded installation requiring many simultaneous display outputs and deterministic clock behavior, the Intel Arc A380E x2 has a specific, if narrow, purpose. No scenario in the recorded data favors the Intel part on compute, memory, or efficiency.