Intel Arc A380E x2 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the primary architectural difference between the Intel Arc A380E x2 and the NVIDIA RTX A400?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process.

Q: Which card has more shading units, and what does this mean for raw compute?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 1024 shading units compared to 768 on the NVIDIA RTX A400. This contributes to the Intel card reaching 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS, making the Intel card approximately 51% higher in raw single-precision compute.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card offers both greater capacity and nearly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports tensor operations and how do they differ?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 includes 24 tensor cores, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 lists no tensor core count in its specifications. The RTX A400's tensor cores support its FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio, matching its FP32 output at 2.706 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 has a TDP of 130 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector. The NVIDIA RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W and requires no power connectors, drawing power solely from the PCIe slot.

Q: How do the physical dimensions of the two cards differ?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 measures 265 mm in length and 127 mm in height, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 is significantly smaller at 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height. Both are single-slot cards.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A380E x2 and NVIDIA RTX A400 represent two fundamentally different design philosophies within the same performance segment. The Intel card is built on the DG2-128 chip using Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors packed into a 157 mm² die. The NVIDIA card uses the GA107 chip on Ampere architecture, produced by Samsung on an 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Interestingly, despite having more transistors, the NVIDIA chip has a lower transistor density at 43.5M per mm² compared to Intel's 45.9M per mm².

The compute architectures diverge substantially. Intel's implementation uses 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. NVIDIA's configuration uses 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Intel card also carries 8 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA card has 6 RT cores plus 24 tensor cores. The presence of tensor cores on the NVIDIA card indicates a focus on AI-accelerated workloads, while the Intel card does not list a tensor core count. This structural difference explains why the Intel card achieves 128.0 GTexel/s texture fill rate and 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, versus 42.29 GTexel/s and 28.19 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel card runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, while the NVIDIA card operates at a 1417 MHz base clock and boosts to 1762 MHz. Despite the higher clocks on the Intel card, the NVIDIA card's memory runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed, while the Intel card's memory runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective speed. The Intel card's 96-bit memory bus combined with the higher memory clock yields 186.0 GB/s bandwidth, nearly double the RTX A400's 96.00 GB/s from its 64-bit bus.

The API support is identical for both cards: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs differ, with the Intel card offering 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connections while the NVIDIA card provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The production status also differs: the Intel card is end-of-life, while the NVIDIA card remains active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall advantage for the Intel Arc A380E x2, though the comparison relies on the RTX A400's measured scores since the Intel card's benchmark array is empty. The NVIDIA RTX A400's average benchmark score is 6078, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The Intel card holds a 50th percentile ranking, indicating it sits in the median position across all recorded GPUs.

The RTX A400's nearest rivals provide context for its performance tier. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 6077, essentially identical with a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049, putting it 0.5% behind. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6117, which is 0.6% ahead of the RTX A400. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 6019, placing it 1% behind. These narrow margins place the RTX A400 in a tightly contested segment where performance differences between competing products are minimal.

Examining the RTX A400's individual benchmark results: Geekbench OpenCL returns 22844, Geekbench Vulkan returns 22237, Passmark G3D returns 5983, Passmark GPU Compute returns 2557, and Passmark G2D returns 899. The older DirectX tests show 87 for DirectX 9, 37 for DirectX 11, 32 for DirectX 10, and 27 for DirectX 12. These scores reveal a pattern where the card performs relatively better in compute-oriented tests than in legacy graphics workloads.

The Intel card's FP32 throughput of 4.096 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS for the RTX A400 represents a 51.4% advantage in raw compute. Memory bandwidth tells a similar story: 186.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s is a 93.75% advantage. The pixel rate advantage is also substantial, with 64.00 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s, making the Intel card 127% faster in that specific metric. Texture rate shows the largest gap: 128.0 GTexel/s against 42.29 GTexel/s, a 202.7% difference.

The percentile rankings reinforce this interpretation. The Intel card's 50th percentile position versus the RTX A400's 35th percentile suggests the Intel card outperforms a larger portion of the GPU population. The RTX A400's average score of 6078, when compared to its nearest rivals within a 1% band, indicates it sits near the center of a tightly clustered performance group, while the Intel card occupies a higher overall tier.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The process node differs: 6 nm TSMC for Intel versus 8 nm Samsung for NVIDIA. Transistor counts differ at 7,200 million versus 8,700 million, with die sizes of 157 mm² versus 200 mm². The transistor density is 45.9M per mm² for Intel and 43.5M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Core configuration differences are significant. The Intel card has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the NVIDIA card has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Ray tracing cores number 8 on the Intel card versus 6 on the NVIDIA card. The NVIDIA card includes 24 tensor cores, while the Intel card lists none.

Clock speeds show the Intel card at 2000 MHz base and boost, while the NVIDIA card runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for Intel and 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory capacity is 6 GB versus 4 GB, with bus widths of 96-bit versus 64-bit, producing bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Compute rates differ substantially: FP32 is 4.096 TFLOPS for Intel and 2.706 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 performance shows the largest architectural divergence: Intel achieves 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA achieves 2.706 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s.

Power specifications show the Intel card at 130 W TDP with a 1x 6-pin connector and 300 W suggested PSU, while the NVIDIA card runs at 50 W with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. Physical dimensions: the Intel card is 265 mm long and 127 mm tall, while the NVIDIA card is 163 mm long and 69 mm tall. The Intel card provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the NVIDIA card provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Release dates are close, with the Intel card launching on 2024-03-31 and the NVIDIA card on 2024-04-15. The Intel card is end-of-life with Battlemage as its successor, while the NVIDIA card is active with Workstation Ada as its successor.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Arc A380E x2 holds a decisive advantage in raw computational throughput. Its FP32 output of 4.096 TFLOPS exceeds the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS by over half, and its memory bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s is nearly double the 96.00 GB/s available to the NVIDIA card. The Intel card also offers 50% more memory capacity at 6 GB versus 4 GB. For workloads that depend on raw compute throughput, texture fill, or pixel throughput, the Intel card's specifications are consistently superior.

The NVIDIA RTX A400's case rests on efficiency and specific feature support. Its 50 W power draw is less than half the Intel card's 130 W, and it requires no external power connector. The presence of 24 tensor cores gives it capabilities the Intel card does not list, which may matter for applications that leverage tensor operations. Its smaller physical footprint at 163 mm versus 265 mm makes it suitable for space-constrained systems.

The production status difference is notable. The Intel card is end-of-life, while the NVIDIA card remains active. The RTX A400's nearest rivals all sit within 1% of its average score of 6078, indicating it competes in a tightly packed performance tier. The Intel card's 50th percentile ranking versus the RTX A400's 35th percentile confirms the performance separation.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380E x2 wins in every measured performance category from the specification data. Its 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 compute, 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 compute, 186.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 128.0 GTexel/s texture rate all exceed the RTX A400's corresponding figures. The 6 GB memory capacity and 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs also favor the Intel card for multi-display configurations. The 2:1 FP16 ratio suggests the Intel card can accelerate half-precision workloads more effectively than the RTX A400's 1:1 ratio.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in power efficiency and operational flexibility. Its 50 W TDP with no power connector requirement allows installation in systems without auxiliary power headers. Its 24 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for tensor-based computations that the Intel card cannot match. The 163 mm length and 69 mm height make it compatible with compact chassis. The active production status ensures ongoing availability, while the Intel card's end-of-life status may limit procurement options. The RTX A400's 4 GB memory, while smaller, may suffice for workloads with modest memory requirements, and its 1:1 FP16 ratio delivers consistent precision across compute tasks without the throughput drop that the Intel card's 2:1 ratio implies when precision is critical.