Intel Arc A380E x2 vs NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc A380E x2 versus the NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation. With zero wins recorded for either side, the comparative performance picture must be assembled from the architectural and specification data available. The Intel part delivers 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA part reaches 8.294 TFLOPS, which is 2.025 times higher. In FP16 workloads, the Intel card outputs 8.192 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card sustains 8.294 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, giving NVIDIA a marginal 0.102 TFLOPS edge even in the Intel part's preferred precision.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel in raw throughput. The Arc A380E x2 has 186.0 GB/s across a 96 bit bus, while the RTX 500 Mobile uses a 64 bit bus for 128.0 GB/s. That leaves Intel with a 58.0 GB/s advantage, or roughly 45.3 percent more bandwidth. However, the NVIDIA part has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 6 GB on the Intel card, so the larger Intel memory pool comes with a slower per-byte access pattern in the NVIDIA part. The pixel rate is nearly identical: 64.00 GPixel/s for Intel and 64.80 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, a difference of only 0.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate shows the same pattern, with Intel at 128.0 GTexel/s and NVIDIA at 129.6 GTexel/s, a 1.6 GTexel/s gap.

The shading unit count diverges sharply. NVIDIA packs 2048 shading units, exactly double the 1024 in the Intel part. RT core counts also double: 16 for NVIDIA versus 8 for Intel. Tensor cores appear only on the NVIDIA side, with 64 available; the Intel part lists none. Both parts share 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs. The compute advantage for NVIDIA is therefore consistent across the pipeline, but the Intel part compensates with higher base clocks: 2000 MHz versus 1485 MHz. Boost clocks are closer, with Intel at 2000 MHz and NVIDIA at 2025 MHz, a 25 MHz advantage for NVIDIA. The Intel card never changes clock speed between base and boost, whereas the NVIDIA part ramps from 1485 MHz to 2025 MHz.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity exists. The percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database is identical at the 50th percentile for both, and both have an average benchmark score of 0, meaning the database has no recorded performance samples for either. The absence of direct measurements leaves the FP32 and memory figures as the primary quantitative comparison points. The data shows NVIDIA at 2.025 times the FP32 throughput and 2.0 times the shading units, while Intel holds a 45.3 percent bandwidth advantage and a 50.0 percent memory capacity advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation. It delivers 8.294 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc A380E x2, a difference of 4.198 TFLOPS, meaning NVIDIA computes at 2.025 times the rate of Intel.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: Intel offers 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA offers 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel holds a 45.3 percent bandwidth advantage and 2 GB more capacity.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. No API differences appear in the database.

Q: What is the transistor and die size relationship?

A: The NVIDIA AD107 chip contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a density of 118.9M per mm². The Intel DG2-128 contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a density of 45.9M per mm². NVIDIA uses 2.625 times more transistors on a die only 2 mm² larger.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 has a 130 W TDP, requires a 300 W suggested PSU, and uses one 6-pin power connector. The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile has a 35 W TDP, no power connector, and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has more RT and tensor hardware?

A: NVIDIA has 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores. Intel has 8 RT cores and no tensor cores. NVIDIA doubles the RT core count and adds tensor hardware that Intel lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The database places both GPUs at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, but the underlying specifications point in opposite directions for different workloads. The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation is the compute-focused part: 2.025 times the FP32 throughput, double the shading units, double the RT cores, and 64 tensor cores for AI workloads. The Intel Arc A380E x2 counters with a 45.3 percent bandwidth advantage, 50.0 percent more memory capacity, and a lower transistor density that suggests a simpler manufacturing approach. Users running FP32-heavy rendering or tensor-based inference should favor the NVIDIA part based on the recorded data. Users needing larger framebuffers for high-resolution textures or memory bandwidth for data movement should consider the Intel part. The power envelope also splits the field: Intel draws 130 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU, while NVIDIA runs at 35 W with no connector requirements, a 95 W difference that matters for constrained systems. The Intel card is marked end-of-life, while the NVIDIA part is active in production. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so the verdict rests entirely on the specification deltas.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measured field. The Intel Arc A380E x2 uses the DG2-128 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile uses the AD107 chip on a 5 nm TSMC process. Intel's die measures 157 mm² with 7,200 million transistors, NVIDIA's measures 159 mm² with 18,900 million transistors. Transistor density reads 45.9M per mm² for Intel and 118.9M per mm² for NVIDIA. Base clocks differ by 515 MHz (2000 MHz Intel versus 1485 MHz NVIDIA), while boost clocks differ by only 25 MHz (2000 MHz Intel versus 2025 MHz NVIDIA). The Intel memory clock runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective, NVIDIA at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration: Intel has 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units: 1024 Intel versus 2048 NVIDIA. TMUs match at 64 each. ROPs match at 32 each. RT cores: 8 Intel versus 16 NVIDIA. Tensor cores: none Intel versus 64 NVIDIA. Pixel rates: 64.00 GPixel/s Intel versus 64.80 GPixel/s NVIDIA. Texture rates: 128.0 GTexel/s Intel versus 129.6 GTexel/s NVIDIA. FP32: 4.096 TFLOPS Intel versus 8.294 TFLOPS NVIDIA. FP16: 8.192 TFLOPS Intel versus 8.294 TFLOPS NVIDIA. TDP: 130 W Intel versus 35 W NVIDIA. Slot width: single-slot Intel versus IGP NVIDIA. Power connectors: one 6-pin Intel versus none NVIDIA. Suggested PSU: 300 W Intel versus none NVIDIA. Bus interface matches at PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 Intel versus portable device dependent NVIDIA. Production status: end-of-life Intel versus active NVIDIA. Release dates: 2024-03-31 Intel versus 2024-02-25 NVIDIA. Dimensions exist only for Intel: 265 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A380E x2 is built on Xe-HPG architecture from the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, with a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage. The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace architecture from the Ada-MW (x000A) generation, with a predecessor of Ampere-MW and a successor of Blackwell-MW. The process node differs: 6 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA, both fabricated by TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the architectural gap: Intel integrates 7,200 million transistors, NVIDIA 18,900 million, a difference of 11,700 million. Die sizes are nearly equal at 157 mm² and 159 mm², so the density difference of 73.0M per mm² comes from the node and design approach.

Compute architecture diverges in core organization. NVIDIA uses 2048 shading units, double Intel's 1024, with 64 tensor cores that Intel does not provide. The RT core count doubles from 8 to 16. FP16 execution differs in ratio: Intel runs FP16 at 2:1 throughput relative to FP32 (8.192 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS), while NVIDIA runs FP16 at 1:1 (8.294 TFLOPS versus 8.294 TFLOPS). This means NVIDIA's FP16 performance is essentially tied to its FP32 peak, while Intel doubles its throughput in half-precision. The memory architecture also reflects different design priorities: Intel uses a 96 bit bus with 186.0 GB/s, NVIDIA a 64 bit bus with 128.0 GB/s, a 32 bit bus width difference and a 58.0 GB/s bandwidth gap. Both support PCIe 4.0 x8 and identical API sets. The Intel part carries a 130 W TDP and requires a 300 W PSU, while NVIDIA fits into a 35 W IGP form factor with no power connector. The database shows the Intel part as end-of-life with a March 2024 release, and the NVIDIA part as active with a February 2024 release.