Intel Arc A380E x2 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the Intel Arc A380E x2 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050. The RTX 5050 delivers a raw compute advantage that is impossible to ignore. In FP32 throughput, the NVIDIA part reaches 13.17 TFLOPS, which is 3.2 times the 4.096 TFLOPS produced by the Intel solution. That difference is the single largest statistical margin between the two products, and it sets the tone for every other comparison.

Texture processing follows the same pattern. The RTX 5050 achieves 205.8 GTexel/s, while the Arc A380E x2 manages 128.0 GTexel/s. That is a 60.8% advantage for NVIDIA in fill-rate capability. Pixel throughput is a closer contest, with the RTX 5050 posting 82.30 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the Intel card, a 28.6% lead. Memory bandwidth shows another substantial gap: the RTX 5050 moves 320.0 GB/s over its 128-bit bus, while the Arc A380E x2 delivers 186.0 GB/s across a 96-bit interface. That is a 72.0% difference in favor of the NVIDIA card.

The RTX 5050 also holds a significant advantage in geometry and shading resources. It carries 2560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA's product therefore offers 2.5 times the shader count and 25% more texture units, with ROP counts matching at 32. The ray tracing hardware differs as well: the RTX 5050 includes 20 RT cores, while the Arc A380E x2 has 8. Tensor core availability is exclusive to the NVIDIA card, which lists 80 tensor cores; the Intel part has no tensor core entry in the database.

Clock speeds reinforce the architectural lead. The RTX 5050 runs at a 2317 MHz base and 2572 MHz boost, compared to the Arc A380E x2's fixed 2000 MHz base and boost. The NVIDIA card also runs faster memory at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective), while the Intel part operates at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). Every measurable clock metric favors the RTX 5050, and the boost clock advantage of 572 MHz is substantial for a product in this class.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design lineages. Intel's Arc A380E x2 uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. NVIDIA's RTX 5050 uses the GB207 chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the GeForce 50-series. The process nodes differ by one manufacturing step: Intel's part is built on a 6 nm process, while NVIDIA's chip uses a 5 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but the density figures show how much the newer design packs into a smaller area. The RTX 5050 contains 16,900 million transistors on a 149 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 113.4M per mm². The Arc A380E x2 holds 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for a density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA chip crams 2.3 times more transistors into a smaller physical footprint.

Memory configurations diverge clearly. The RTX 5050 offers 8 GB of GDDR6 across a 128-bit bus, while the Arc A380E x2 offers 6 GB of GDDR6 across a 96-bit bus. The bandwidth result is a 72.0% advantage for the NVIDIA card. The Intel part's memory clock is lower in both raw frequency and effective data rate, which compounds the bus-width disadvantage.

Interface support also separates the pair. The RTX 5050 uses PCIe 5.0 x8, while the Arc A380E x2 relies on PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs differ in quantity and type: the Intel card provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connections, while the NVIDIA card provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. Physical dimensions are only recorded for the Intel part, which measures 265 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The RTX 5050 is dual-slot, whereas the Arc A380E x2 is single-slot. Power delivery uses a 1x 6-pin connector on the Intel card and a 1x 8-pin connector on the NVIDIA card, though both share a 130 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Compute precision handling reveals another architectural split. The Arc A380E x2 outputs 8.192 TFLOPS in FP16 using a 2:1 ratio, effectively doubling its FP32 rate. The RTX 5050 outputs 13.17 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. NVIDIA's design does not double throughput in half precision, but its FP16 rate still exceeds Intel's by 60.7%. This means the Intel card has a dedicated half-precision path, while the NVIDIA card treats FP16 and FP32 with equal throughput.

API support is identical on paper: both products list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Production status differs, with the Intel part marked end-of-life and the NVIDIA part active. Release timing shows the Intel card arriving on 2024-03-31 and the RTX 5050 on 2025-06-30. The Intel product's predecessor is listed as Xe Graphics with Battlemage as successor, while the RTX 5050 follows GeForce 40 and precedes GeForce 60.

Where Each One Wins

Benchmark results in the database cover only the RTX 5050, which limits direct score comparisons. The NVIDIA card records an average benchmark score of 21,035 and sits at the 66th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, scores 21,153, which is 0.6% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 8970M posts 21,237, 1% above the RTX 5050, while the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile reaches 21,379, 1.6% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT trails at 20,713, which is 1.6% below the RTX 5050. These deltas place the RTX 5050 in a tight cluster where no nearby competitor deviates by more than 1.6%.

The RTX 5050's individual test scores reveal its strengths. In Geekbench OpenCL it records 90,334, and in Geekbench Vulkan 89,381. The PassMark G3D score lands at 17,326, with PassMark GPU Compute at 9,184. Legacy DirectX tests show scores of 186 in DirectX 9, 150 in DirectX 11, 103 in DirectX 10, and 66 in DirectX 12. The 2D test posts 1,113. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2,502.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 has no benchmark entries in the database, so its percentile rank of 50 and average score of 0 should be interpreted as missing data rather than measured performance. What can be stated from the specifications is that the Intel card wins in no computed throughput category. The RTX 5050 leads in FP32, FP16, texture rate, pixel rate, memory bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, RT cores, and tensor cores. The only categories where the Intel part matches or exceeds are ROP count, which ties at 32, and physical footprint, where the single-slot design is more compact than the dual-slot RTX 5050.

For workloads that rely on half-precision math, the Intel card's 2:1 FP16 ratio means its FP16 output is exactly double its FP32 output. That gives it a relative efficiency advantage in that specific precision mode, even though the absolute FP16 number remains lower than NVIDIA's. For display flexibility, the Intel card's 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs support multi-monitor configurations that the NVIDIA card's 4 outputs cannot match.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 outclasses the Intel Arc A380E x2 in every measured compute metric. FP32 throughput is 3.2 times higher, texture rate is 60.8% higher, pixel rate is 28.6% higher, and memory bandwidth is 72.0% higher. The RTX 5050 also brings more shaders, more TMUs, more RT cores, and exclusive tensor cores. Its 8 GB memory capacity exceeds the Intel card's 6 GB, and its PCIe 5.0 x8 interface doubles the bus generation of the Intel part's PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 does have a role. Its single-slot design, 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, and lower transistor count suggest a product aimed at dense multi-display installations rather than raw rendering performance. Its 45.9M per mm² transistor density is less than half the NVIDIA chip's 113.4M per mm², confirming a simpler design with fewer resources. The end-of-life production status further indicates that Intel has moved on to newer architectures.

Users who prioritize rendering, compute, gaming, or ray tracing should select the RTX 5050. The recorded benchmark percentile of 66 and average score of 21,035 place it above the majority of GPUs in the database, with nearest rivals within a 1.6% band. Users who need many display outputs in a compact single-slot form factor will find the Arc A380E x2 suitable, but they should expect a significant reduction in all shader, memory, and throughput metrics. The RTX 5050 has a launch MSRP of 249 USD. The Intel card has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 delivers 13.17 TFLOPS in FP32, which is 3.2 times the 4.096 TFLOPS produced by the Intel Arc A380E x2.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The RTX 5050 offers 320.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the Arc A380E x2 provides 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit bus. That is a 72.0% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The RTX 5050 has 8 GB of GDDR6, and the Arc A380E x2 has 6 GB of GDDR6.

Q: How does the RTX 5050 rank against its nearest rivals?

A: Its average score of 21,035 sits 1.6% below the AMD Radeon RTX A4000 Mobile, 1% below the AMD Radeon HD 8970M, 0.6% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, and 1.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the production status of each product?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 is marked end-of-life, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is active. The RTX 5050 has a launch MSRP of 249 USD.