Intel Arc A380E x2 vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Intel Arc A380E x2 and NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, one a dual-chip embedded product from Intel’s Alchemist generation, the other a single, large mobile workstation chip from NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace line. The recorded data shows two designs with divergent priorities: the Intel part emphasizes compactness and display output flexibility, while the NVIDIA part delivers substantially higher raw compute and memory throughput. This analysis compares the two strictly from the database records.

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectures of these two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, built on a 6 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD103 chip, built on a 5 nm TSMC process.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel part has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation has 9728 shading units and 304 TMUs. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 has a TDP of 130 W and requires a 300 W suggested power supply. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 120 W and is an IGP with no power connectors listed.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with modern graphics APIs?

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

Q: What is the production status and release timeline for each?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 is end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with Battlemage listed as its successor. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation is active, released on 2023-03-20, with Blackwell-MW listed as its successor.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge at the process level. Intel uses a 6 nm TSMC node for the DG2-128 chip, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC node for the AD103 chip. This contributes to a significant difference in transistor density: the Intel chip packs 7,200 million transistors across a 157 mm² die, yielding a density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA chip packs 45,900 million transistors across a 379 mm² die, yielding a density of 121.1M per mm². The NVIDIA die is therefore denser and larger, with roughly six times the total transistor count.

The internal compute resources also differ sharply. Intel’s DG2-128 provides 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA’s AD103 provides 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, 112 ROPs, and 76 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA chip also includes 304 tensor cores, a feature absent from the Intel part. Clock behavior differs as well: Intel runs a flat 2000 MHz base and boost, while NVIDIA runs a 1425 MHz base and a 2115 MHz boost. The effective memory clocks are 15.5 Gbps for Intel and 18 Gbps for NVIDIA.

The physical and integration profiles are opposite. Intel’s card is a single-slot, 265 mm long, 127 mm high, 20 mm wide board with a 6-pin power connector, 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. NVIDIA’s part is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, no dimensions listed, and display outputs that are portable device dependent, using a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. The Intel part is end-of-life, the NVIDIA part is active.

The Verdict

The database shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 41.15 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That is a 10-fold difference in raw floating-point throughput. The NVIDIA part also offers 16 GB of memory versus 6 GB, and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 186.0 GB/s. In any compute-bound scenario, the NVIDIA part is the stronger choice.

The Intel part wins on form factor and display connectivity. It is a single-slot card with eight mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it suitable for multi-display embedded or workstation installations. Its 130 W TDP is only slightly higher than the NVIDIA part’s 120 W, and it has a listed 300 W suggested power supply. The NVIDIA part, as an IGP, is designed to be integrated into a portable device, so its display outputs and power delivery are determined by the host system.

For raw performance, the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation is the obvious pick. For a compact, multi-output card with a standard PCIe slot, the Intel Arc A380E x2 is the only one of the two that fits that role. The data does not support the Intel part in any performance comparison against the NVIDIA chip.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Intel Arc A380E x2 uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, while the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD103 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture. Intel is on a 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die; NVIDIA is on a 5 nm process with 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die. Transistor density is 45.9M per mm² for Intel and 121.1M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds: Intel runs at 2000 MHz base and boost with 1937 MHz memory (15.5 Gbps effective). NVIDIA runs at 1425 MHz base and 2115 MHz boost with 2250 MHz memory (18 Gbps effective). Memory: Intel has 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth; NVIDIA has 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. Compute units: Intel has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores; NVIDIA has 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, 112 ROPs, and 76 RT cores. NVIDIA also has 304 tensor cores; Intel has none listed.

Pixel and texture rates: Intel delivers 64.00 GPixel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s; NVIDIA delivers 236.9 GPixel/s and 643.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput: 4.096 TFLOPS for Intel versus 41.15 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 throughput: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel versus 41.15 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA. Power: Intel is 130 W TDP with a 6-pin connector and 300 W suggested PSU; NVIDIA is 120 W TDP with no connectors and no PSU listed. Form factor: Intel is a single-slot card, 265 mm long, 127 mm tall, 20 mm wide; NVIDIA is an IGP with no dimensions. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel, PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs: 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 for Intel, portable device dependent for NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark section in the database is empty for direct comparisons between these two GPUs. However, the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation has a recorded benchmark entry: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 3596. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has no benchmark scores listed and an average benchmark score of zero.

The NVIDIA part’s percentile versus all GPUs is 21, meaning it sits below the majority of recorded GPUs in the database for this particular test. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 with an average score of 3594 (a 0.1% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M with 3616 (a 0.6% difference in the other direction), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 with 3629 (a 0.9% difference), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 with 3649 (a 1.5% difference). These are all older, lower-tier cards, and the score deltas are within a few percentage points. This places the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation’s Steel Nomad result in a performance bracket that is not representative of its theoretical compute capabilities, likely because the benchmark run is constrained by the mobile platform’s power and thermal limits.

The Intel part has no comparable benchmark data, so no direct numerical comparison can be made from the database. What is clear from the specification records is that the NVIDIA part has 10 times the FP32 throughput, 3 times the memory bandwidth, and over 2.5 times the memory capacity. Even without a direct benchmark, the recorded specifications indicate a massive performance gap in compute-heavy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation wins in all compute-oriented categories. Its FP32 throughput of 41.15 TFLOPS is an order of magnitude above the Intel part’s 4.096 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 643.0 GTexel/s is roughly five times the Intel part’s 128.0 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 236.9 GPixel/s is about 3.7 times the Intel part’s 64.00 GPixel/s. The 16 GB memory capacity and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures, whereas the Intel part’s 6 GB and 186.0 GB/s are far more limited. The NVIDIA part also has tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks, enabling AI and machine learning workloads that the Intel part cannot accelerate in the same way.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 wins in display and deployment flexibility. It has eight mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, allowing a single card to drive a large array of monitors. It is a single-slot card with defined dimensions, a 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested power supply, which makes it straightforward to install in a standard desktop or embedded chassis. The NVIDIA part, as an IGP, depends entirely on the host portable device for its power and display connections, so it cannot serve as a standalone multi-output card.

In terms of production status, the Intel part is end-of-life, while the NVIDIA part is active. That means the NVIDIA part is the one with ongoing availability and support in the current market. The Intel part’s successor is listed as Battlemage, and its predecessor is Xe Graphics, while the NVIDIA part’s predecessor is Ampere-MW and its successor is Blackwell-MW.

For a builder selecting between these two, the choice is dictated by the use case. If the goal is raw processing power, AI acceleration, or large memory buffers, the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation is the only option with the recorded specifications to support it. If the goal is a compact, single-slot card with eight independent display outputs and a standard power connector, the Intel Arc A380E x2 is the only one that fits that description. There is no overlap in their strengths, and the benchmark data, where present, reinforces the NVIDIA part’s dominance in performance while leaving the Intel part’s niche in display density unchallenged.