Intel Arc A380E x2 vs NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for this comparison is unusual: neither GPU has benchmark entries in the database, and the head-to-head analysis contains no measured scores. The absence of benchmark data means the comparison must be built entirely from the architectural and specification records. The Intel Arc A380E x2 and the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation occupy the same percentile rank against all GPUs, 50th percentile each, which places both in the middle of the database distribution despite their very different designs.

The most significant gap appears in raw compute throughput. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 15.62 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That is a difference of roughly 3.8 times in favor of the NVIDIA part. The FP16 figures reinforce the same pattern: NVIDIA provides 15.62 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while Intel provides 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The 1:1 ratio on the NVIDIA part means it does not halve throughput when switching to FP16 workloads, whereas the Intel part halves its rate, so the effective FP16 gap is even larger than the FP32 gap.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same direction. The NVIDIA part has a texture rate of 244.1 GTexel/s against 128.0 GTexel/s for Intel, a lead of approximately 1.9 times. Pixel rate is closer but still favors NVIDIA: 81.36 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, a margin of about 27 percent. The memory subsystem also favors NVIDIA in raw bandwidth, 256.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, which is a 37.6 percent advantage. The bus width difference explains much of this: 128 bit versus 96 bit.

The shading resources are heavily asymmetric. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation uses 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Intel Arc A380E x2 uses 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 36 ray tracing cores and 144 tensor cores; the Intel part has 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor core entry in the database. These resource counts align with the compute throughput numbers and indicate that the NVIDIA part is designed for substantially heavier workloads.

Clock behavior differs between the two. The Intel part runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost, which is a high static clock. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1395 MHz and a boost clock of 1695 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the NVIDIA part achieves far higher throughput because of its larger execution resource pool. The Intel approach uses a smaller chip at a higher clock, while NVIDIA uses a larger chip at a more moderate clock. The memory clock shows a similar split: Intel runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective, NVIDIA at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

The power envelopes move in the opposite direction of the performance deltas. The Intel part has a TDP of 130 W, while the NVIDIA part has a TDP of 115 W. That means the NVIDIA part delivers roughly 3.8 times the FP32 throughput while drawing 15 W less according to the recorded TDP values. The NVIDIA part also uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, twice the lane count of the Intel part's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which matters for data transfer in bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

The Verdict

The database contains no measured benchmark scores for either GPU, so the verdict rests on the specification records. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy: the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation leads in every compute and memory metric recorded, with the sole exception of clock speed and power draw. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has a higher boost clock, 2000 MHz versus 1695 MHz, and a higher TDP, 130 W versus 115 W, but lower throughput across the board.

The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation is the stronger part for any workload that depends on FP32 compute, texture rate, pixel rate, ray tracing, or memory bandwidth. Its 144 tensor cores add capabilities that the Intel part lacks entirely in the database record. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has a multi-GPU configuration in its name, "x2", which suggests the system may contain two of these GPUs, but the database records no combined benchmark scores for that configuration, so the comparison is strictly single-GPU versus single-GPU.

The production status differs as well. The Intel part is listed as end-of-life, while the NVIDIA part is active. The Intel part was released on 2024-03-31, and the NVIDIA part on 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA part therefore has a longer recorded availability horizon. The Intel part lists a successor, Battlemage, while the NVIDIA part lists Blackwell-MW as its successor.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation wins in every measured performance category. Its FP32 throughput of 15.62 TFLOPS dominates the Intel part's 4.096 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 244.1 GTexel/s more than doubles the Intel figure. Its memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s exceeds the Intel part by 70 GB/s. Its 36 ray tracing cores and 144 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration paths that the Intel part either lacks or provides in much smaller quantity, with 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores recorded.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 wins in clock speed. Its 2000 MHz base and boost clocks are higher than the NVIDIA part's 1395 MHz base and 1695 MHz boost. It also has a larger physical footprint in the database: 265 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with a single-slot design and a 1x 6-pin power connector. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with no dimensions, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Intel part offers 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, which is a fixed and explicit display configuration, while the NVIDIA part's display outputs depend on the portable device it is integrated into.

The power draw comparison favors the NVIDIA part in efficiency terms. The NVIDIA part produces more than three times the FP32 throughput at a lower TDP. The Intel part draws 130 W and suggests a 300 W power supply, while the NVIDIA part has no suggested PSU entry. The transistor data shows the NVIDIA chip is larger and denser: 22,900 million transistors on 188 mm² at 121.8M per mm², versus 7,200 million transistors on 157 mm² at 45.9M per mm². Both use TSMC as the foundry, but the NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process while the Intel part uses 6 nm.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 15.62 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA part has 256.0 GB/s over a 128 bit bus, and the Intel part has 186.0 GB/s over a 96 bit bus.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380E x2 have tensor cores?

A: The database records no tensor core count for the Intel part. The NVIDIA part has 144 tensor cores.

Q: What are the ray tracing core counts?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation has 36 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 runs at 2000 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part boosts to 1695 MHz.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The Intel part is rated at 130 W. The NVIDIA part is rated at 115 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and different architectural lineages. Intel uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist generation under the Arc 3 branding. NVIDIA uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD106 chip, part of the Ada-MW generation. The manufacturing process differs by one node step: Intel uses TSMC at 6 nm, NVIDIA uses TSMC at 5 nm.

The transistor counts show the scale difference. The NVIDIA chip contains 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, giving a density of 121.8M per mm². The Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA die is only 31 mm² larger but holds more than three times the transistors. That density gap reflects both the process node difference and the architectural complexity of Ada Lovelace.

The compute architectures diverge in their FP16 handling. Intel implements FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning half the FP32 rate, while NVIDIA implements FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning the same rate as FP32. This makes the NVIDIA part more efficient for mixed-precision workloads. The shading unit count also differs by a factor of 4.5: 4608 on NVIDIA versus 1024 on Intel. The TMU count is 144 versus 64, and the ROP count is 48 versus 32.

Memory configurations differ in size and width. The NVIDIA part has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use GDDR6, but the NVIDIA part has more capacity and more bandwidth. The memory clock is slightly higher on the NVIDIA part at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, versus 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective on Intel.

The bus interface differs by lane count. NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16, Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x8. This affects host-to-GPU transfer rates in scenarios where the interface is the bottleneck. The physical form factors could not be more different: the Intel part is a single-slot card measuring 265 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm with a 1x 6-pin power connector, while the NVIDIA part is an IGP with no dimensions and no power connectors. The Intel card provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs; the NVIDIA part's display outputs are listed as portable-device dependent.

API support is identical in the database record: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status differs, with Intel listed as end-of-life and NVIDIA as active. The release dates are roughly a year apart, with NVIDIA launching on 2023-03-20 and Intel on 2024-03-31. Each has a recorded successor: Intel lists Battlemage, NVIDIA lists Blackwell-MW. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database, and neither has any recorded benchmark scores or rival comparisons, so the analysis is limited to the specification-level differences documented here.