Intel Arc A380M vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

The Intel Arc A380M and NVIDIA Rubin GPU represent two entirely different corners of the GPU market, one a low-power mobile module and the other a massive server accelerator. The database shows a 50th percentile ranking for both, but their specifications and intended use cases diverge completely. The Arc A380M is a compact MXM module for portable devices, while the Rubin GPU is a 2300 W SXM server module with no display outputs. The data indicates that these products are not direct competitors, and the selection between them depends entirely on the workload and form factor requirements.

The Verdict

The Intel Arc A380M is designed for portable and mobile systems that require moderate graphics capability within a 35 W power envelope. Its MXM-A (3.1) bus interface and portable device dependent display outputs make it suitable for laptops or embedded systems where space and thermal limits are tight. The A380M uses the Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-128 chip, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. It delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which places it in the entry-level segment of the database rankings.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server-class accelerator with a 2300 W TDP and a recommended 2700 W power supply. It uses the GR100 chip on a 3 nm process at TSMC, integrating 336,000 million transistors across a 1456 mm² die, which is a transistor density of 230.8M per mm². Its FP32 throughput reaches 130.0 TFLOPS, and it features 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus delivering 22.1 TB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU targets high-performance computing and AI workloads, with no display outputs, indicating it operates headless in server environments.

Based on the recorded data, the Arc A380M is the appropriate choice for mobile computing devices that need a self-contained graphics solution. The Rubin GPU is the selection for server installations that require massive compute throughput and memory capacity. The two products share no meaningful overlap in terms of power, size, or intended deployment, so the data does not support a direct comparison of performance in typical use cases.

FAQ

Q: What is the difference in process node between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A380M uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses a 3 nm process at the same foundry. The smaller node allows the Rubin GPU to pack significantly more transistors into its die.

Q: How does memory capacity differ between these products?

A: The Arc A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus, providing 22.1 TB/s bandwidth, which is over 100 times higher.

Q: What is the transistor count on each chip?

A: The Arc A380M's DG2-128 chip contains 7,200 million transistors. The Rubin GPU's GR100 chip contains 336,000 million transistors, which is 47 times more, with a die size of 1456 mm² compared to 157 mm².

Q: Are these GPUs compatible with the same systems?

A: No. The Arc A380M uses the MXM-A (3.1) bus interface and is an MXM Module slot width, designed for portable devices. The Rubin GPU uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface and an SXM Module slot width for server racks, with no display outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The Arc A380M has a 35 W TDP. The Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 2700 W, indicating a server-grade power delivery system.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The Arc A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, with those APIs listed as N/A.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on completely different architectures. The Intel Arc A380M uses the Xe-HPG architecture from the Alchemist generation, specifically designed for mobile graphics. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the Rubin architecture, part of the Server Rubin generation, targeting data center workloads. The chip designs reflect this split: the A380M has a DG2-128 chip, while the Rubin GPU has a GR100 chip.

The process technology differs significantly. The A380M is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Rubin GPU uses a 3 nm process at the same foundry. This process difference contributes to the transistor density gap: the A380M achieves 45.9M transistors per mm², whereas the Rubin GPU reaches 230.8M per mm². The die sizes also differ, with the A380M at 157 mm² and the Rubin GPU at 1456 mm².

Compute resources vary widely. The Arc A380M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with 896 tensor cores and no listed ray tracing cores. The Rubin GPU's shading unit count is 28 times higher, reflecting its server-class compute focus.

Memory architecture is another major distinction. The A380M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 with a 16384-bit bus and 22.1 TB/s bandwidth. The memory clock also differs: the A380M runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the Rubin GPU runs at 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), though the massive bus width on the Rubin GPU compensates for the lower per-pin speed.

The API support shows the target platforms. The A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU has N/A for all three APIs, indicating it is not intended for conventional graphics rendering but rather for compute and AI tasks that bypass traditional graphics APIs.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 6 nm for the A380M versus 3 nm for the Rubin GPU. Transistor count stands at 7,200 million for the A380M versus 336,000 million for the Rubin GPU. Die size is 157 mm² for the A380M versus 1456 mm² for the Rubin GPU, with transistor densities of 45.9M per mm² and 230.8M per mm², respectively.

Clock speeds show an interesting contrast. The A380M has a base clock of 1550 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The Rubin GPU has a lower base clock of 700 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2267 MHz. The memory clock is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for the A380M and 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the Rubin GPU.

Memory specifications diverge sharply. The A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth. The bus width difference is 16384 versus 96 bits, a factor of 170, while bandwidth scales from 186.0 GB/s to 22.1 TB/s.

Compute resources differ in scale. The A380M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 896 tensor cores. Pixel rates are 64.00 GPixel/s for the A380M and 54.41 GPixel/s for the Rubin GPU, with texture rates of 128.0 GTexel/s and 2,031.2 GTexel/s, respectively.

FP32 and FP16 throughput show the compute gap. The A380M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), representing 32 times higher FP32 and FP16 output.

Power and form factor are polar opposites. The A380M has a 35 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width. The Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP and uses an SXM Module slot width, with a suggested power supply of 2700 W. The bus interface is MXM-A (3.1) for the A380M and PCIe 6.0 x16 for the Rubin GPU. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the A380M and absent for the Rubin GPU.

The release dates differ, with the A380M appearing on 2023-01-23 and the Rubin GPU on 2025-12-31. The production status for both is listed as Active. The Rubin GPU has a predecessor listed as Server Blackwell, while the A380M has no predecessor or successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc A380M and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. The winsA and winsB fields are both 0, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. This absence of comparative data aligns with the products' divergent roles: one is a mobile graphics module, the other a server accelerator.

Instead, the specification data provides the basis for comparison. In raw compute throughput, the Rubin GPU leads decisively. Its FP32 performance of 130.0 TFLOPS is 32 times higher than the A380M's 4.096 TFLOPS. The FP16 ratio is identical, with the Rubin GPU at 260.0 TFLOPS versus the A380M's 8.192 TFLOPS. Texture rate tells a similar story, with the Rubin GPU delivering 2,031.2 GTexel/s compared to 128.0 GTexel/s for the A380M, a 16-fold advantage.

Memory bandwidth favors the Rubin GPU overwhelmingly. Its 22.1 TB/s bandwidth is over 100 times greater than the A380M's 186.0 GB/s. The memory capacity difference is 288 GB versus 6 GB, a 48-fold gap. The Rubin GPU's 16384-bit bus width dwarfs the 96-bit bus of the A380M, enabling that bandwidth advantage despite the lower effective memory clock of 10.8 Gbps versus 15.5 Gbps.

The A380M holds advantages in certain areas. Its pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s exceeds the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s, likely due to the higher ROP count of 32 versus 24. The A380M also has a higher base clock of 1550 MHz versus 700 MHz, and its boost clock of 2000 MHz is closer to the Rubin GPU's 2267 MHz. The A380M's ray tracing cores, 8 of them, provide capabilities that the Rubin GPU lacks entirely, as its rtCores field is null.

Power efficiency favors the A380M in terms of raw numbers. At 35 W TDP, the A380M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32, while the Rubin GPU at 2300 W delivers 130.0 TFLOPS. The A380M achieves roughly 0.117 TFLOPS per watt, while the Rubin GPU achieves 0.057 TFLOPS per watt, though this is not a direct efficiency comparison due to the different architectures and use cases.

The API support also differs. The A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it usable for gaming and graphics applications. The Rubin GPU has N/A for all APIs, meaning it cannot run traditional graphics workloads and is instead intended for compute and AI tasks that use proprietary or non-graphics interfaces.

The transistor density comparison highlights the manufacturing advantage of the Rubin GPU. At 230.8M per mm², the Rubin GPU's 3 nm process packs over five times more transistors per area than the A380M's 45.9M per mm² on 6 nm. This density enables the Rubin GPU's massive compute resources within its 1456 mm² die.

Given the lack of direct benchmarks, the recorded data indicates that these products serve different markets entirely. The A380M is a low-power mobile solution with graphics API support and display outputs. The Rubin GPU is a high-power server solution with no display outputs and no conventional graphics API support. The selection between them follows the deployment environment: portable devices for the A380M, data center servers for the Rubin GPU. The database does not provide any workload where both would be viable alternatives, making a performance-based choice impossible from the available data.