Intel Arc A380E x2 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any directly linked head-to-head benchmark runs between the Intel Arc A380E x2 and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation. The headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty, so no side-by-side test scores are available for these two specific cards. However, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a full recorded benchmark suite, while the Arc A380E x2 has no benchmark entries in the database. This absence of data is itself informative: it means the A380E x2 cannot be positioned against the RTX 2000 Ada on any measured workload from the recorded results.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation posts a Passmark G3D score of 16927, a Passmark GPU Compute score of 7834, and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 78074. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it records 1767 points. The Arc A380E x2, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 and no individual test entries. Consequently, the only quantitative comparison available is through the RTX 2000 Ada's percentile and rival deltas. The RTX 2000 Ada sits at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Rival comparisons for the RTX 2000 Ada show a tight cluster. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 averages 19030, which is 0.4% higher than the RTX 2000 Ada's average of 18954. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 scores 19036, also 0.4% higher. The NVIDIA Tesla K80 scores 18866, which is 0.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile scores 19049, 0.5% higher. These delta values place the RTX 2000 Ada squarely in the middle of a group of older workstation and midrange gaming cards, with no single rival separating by more than half a percentage point.

Because the Arc A380E x2 has no recorded benchmark scores, the data cannot show a single win for either card in any test. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero. The practical interpretation is straightforward: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has measurable performance data, the Arc A380E x2 does not, and any head-to-head claim would require the A380E x2 to be benchmarked first.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and different design generations. The Intel Arc A380E x2 uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, designated as generation Alchemist (Arc 3). The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, designated as generation Workstation Ada (x000A). Both are fabricated by TSMC, but on different nodes: the Intel card uses a 6 nm process, while the NVIDIA card uses a 5 nm process.

Transistor counts differ dramatically. The Arc A380E x2 packs 7,200 million transistors on a die of 157 mm², giving a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The RTX 2000 Ada packs 18,900 million transistors on a die of 159 mm², yielding a density of 118.9 million per square millimeter. The die sizes are nearly identical, but the NVIDIA part fits more than 2.6 times the transistor count into essentially the same area, which reflects the denser 5 nm process.

Clock behavior also differs. The Arc A380E x2 runs a fixed 2000 MHz base and boost clock, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The RTX 2000 Ada has a 1620 MHz base clock and a 2130 MHz boost clock, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The Intel card holds a single clock across the board, while the NVIDIA card boosts substantially above its base.

The execution resources are far apart. The Arc A380E x2 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The RTX 2000 Ada has 2816 shading units, 88 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 22 ray tracing cores, and 88 tensor cores. The Arc card has no tensor cores listed at all, while the NVIDIA card integrates a full tensor core array. The FP32 throughput tells the story: 4.096 TFLOPS for the Arc versus 12.00 TFLOPS for the RTX 2000 Ada. The FP16 figures are 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) for the Arc versus 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) for the NVIDIA card.

Memory subsystems differ in capacity, bus width, and bandwidth. The Arc A380E x2 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s. The RTX 2000 Ada has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8. The pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s for the Intel card and 102.2 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card. The texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s versus 187.4 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The Arc A380E x2 is rated at 130 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and is a single-slot card measuring 265 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The RTX 2000 Ada is rated at 70 W TDP, requires no power connector, and is a dual-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The suggested PSU is 300 W for the Intel card and 250 W for the NVIDIA card. The Arc card offers 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs; the RTX 2000 Ada offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data gives the RTX 2000 Ada Generation a clear set of wins across every measured category, simply because it has measurements. It delivers 12.00 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is roughly three times the Arc A380E x2's 4.096 TFLOPS. Its 16 GB memory capacity is more than double the 6 GB on the Intel card, and its 256.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the Arc's 186.0 GB/s by a wide margin. The RTX 2000 Ada also has tensor cores, which the Arc lacks entirely, making it the only one of the two suited to workloads that rely on tensor operations.

The Arc A380E x2 wins on a few specific physical and output characteristics. It is a single-slot card, while the RTX 2000 Ada is dual-slot. It provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, which is double the 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs on the NVIDIA card, and the DisplayPort 2.0 standard is newer than 1.4a. The Arc card also has a higher base clock at 2000 MHz versus 1620 MHz, though the NVIDIA boost clock of 2130 MHz exceeds that figure.

For compute-heavy rendering, simulation, or AI-adjacent tasks, the data points entirely to the RTX 2000 Ada. It has more shading units, more ray tracing cores, tensor cores, higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, more memory, and greater bandwidth. For multi-display setups where output count matters more than raw compute, the Arc A380E x2 offers twice as many display outputs and a newer display standard. The Arc card also consumes more power at 130 W versus 70 W, which is not a win, but its single-slot footprint and six-pin connector may fit certain chassis constraints.

The percentile data reinforces the NVIDIA card's position. The RTX 2000 Ada sits at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs, against the Arc A380E x2's 50th percentile. The Arc card's percentile is recorded even though its average benchmark score is zero, which suggests the percentile is derived from specifications or a separate ranking, not from measured tests.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers 12.00 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, compared to 4.096 TFLOPS for the Arc A380E x2.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Arc A380E x2 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus, while the RTX 2000 Ada has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus.

Q: Does the Arc A380E x2 have tensor cores?

A: No. The Arc A380E x2 has no tensor cores listed, while the RTX 2000 Ada has 88 tensor cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Arc A380E x2 is rated at 130 W TDP and needs a 1x 6-pin power connector. The RTX 2000 Ada is rated at 70 W TDP and requires no power connector.

Q: Which card has more display outputs?

A: The Arc A380E x2 has 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The RTX 2000 Ada has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

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

A: No. The Arc A380E x2 has an empty benchmark list and an average benchmark score of 0. The RTX 2000 Ada has ten recorded benchmark scores.

Q: What is the RTX 2000 Ada's closest rival in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K80 is the only rival that scores lower, at 18866, which is 0.5% below the RTX 2000 Ada's average of 18954. The other three listed rivals score between 0.4% and 0.5% higher.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The process node is 6 nm for the Arc A380E x2 and 5 nm for the RTX 2000 Ada. Transistor count is 7,200 million versus 18,900 million. Die size is 157 mm² versus 159 mm². Transistor density is 45.9M per mm² versus 118.9M per mm². Base clock is 2000 MHz versus 1620 MHz. Boost clock is 2000 MHz versus 2130 MHz. Memory clock is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is 6 GB versus 16 GB. Bus width is 96 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is 186.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Shading units are 1024 versus 2816. TMUs are 64 versus 88. ROPs are 32 versus 48. Ray tracing cores are 8 versus 22. Tensor cores are absent on the Arc and 88 on the RTX 2000 Ada. Pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s versus 102.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s versus 187.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 4.096 TFLOPS versus 12.00 TFLOPS. FP16 is 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP is 130 W versus 70 W. Slot width is single-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU is 300 W versus 250 W. Length is 265 mm versus 168 mm. Height is 127 mm versus 69 mm. Width is 20 mm for the Arc, with no width listed for the RTX 2000 Ada. Display outputs are 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for both.

Production status is end-of-life for the Arc A380E x2 and active for the RTX 2000 Ada. Release dates are 2024-03-31 for the Intel card and 2024-02-11 for the NVIDIA card. The Arc A380E x2 has no launch MSRP. The RTX 2000 Ada has a launch MSRP of 649 USD. The Arc predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage. The RTX 2000 Ada predecessor is Workstation Ampere and its successor is Blackwell PRO W.

The API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The percentile ranking differs, 50 for the Arc and 63 for the RTX 2000 Ada. Average benchmark scores are 0 for the Arc and 18954 for the RTX 2000 Ada.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive split. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the only one of the two with measured performance in the database, and its specifications support that position. It has roughly three times the FP32 throughput, more than double the memory capacity, higher bandwidth, more ray tracing cores, and the only tensor cores of the pair. It also draws 60 W less power, needs no power connector, and is nearly 100 mm shorter. The launch MSRP of 649 USD is the only price figure recorded for either card.

The Arc A380E x2 has no benchmark scores, an average score of zero, and a 50th percentile ranking. Its advantages are confined to display output count, with 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, and a single-slot form factor. Its 2000 MHz base clock is higher than the NVIDIA card's 1620 MHz base, but the NVIDIA boost clock of 2130 MHz exceeds it.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the card for compute, rendering, and memory-heavy workloads. The Arc A380E x2 is the card for multi-display setups where output count and slot width take priority over raw performance. The RTX 2000 Ada's active production status and dense 5 nm design with 18,900 million transistors give it a longer expected availability. The Arc A380E x2 is end-of-life, which limits its suitability for new deployments.

For a builder choosing between the two, the recorded data favors the RTX 2000 Ada in every measured performance category. The Arc A380E x2 remains a niche option for high-output display walls, but the absence of any benchmark results means it cannot be recommended on performance grounds. The percentile gap, 63 versus 50, and the massive specification differences in compute resources make the RTX 2000 Ada the only defensible choice for general workstation use.