Intel Arc G3 vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc G3 versus the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation. Both products record zero benchmark scores, zero average benchmark scores, and no nearest rival comparisons. The wins tally sits at zero for each part. This absence of measured data means any direct performance comparison must be derived entirely from the architectural and specification records in the database.

What the recorded data does show is a substantial gap in raw compute capability. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 23.04 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc G3 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at 3.75 times the single-precision floating-point throughput of the Intel part. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided in favor of NVIDIA, as the RTX 3500 maintains 23.04 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Arc G3 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the NVIDIA part leads by roughly 1.88 times in half-precision work.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation records 360.0 GTexel/s and 144.0 GPixel/s, against 96.00 GTexel/s and 48.00 GPixel/s for the Arc G3. The NVIDIA part is 3.75 times faster in texturing and exactly 3 times faster in pixel fill. These ratios align with the shading unit counts: 5120 versus 1280, a 4:1 advantage in shader hardware, though the actual FP32 ratio is slightly less than 4:1 due to clock differences.

Clock behavior diverges interestingly. The Intel Arc G3 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, an 8 times multiplier between its floor and ceiling. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation runs a base of 1725 MHz and a boost of 2250 MHz, a much tighter 1.3 times spread. The Arc G3's low base clock suggests an aggressively power-managed design that ramps up under load, while the NVIDIA part maintains a higher idle floor and a comparatively modest boost ceiling. This points to different operating philosophies: the Intel chip appears designed for bursty, power-constrained workloads, whereas the NVIDIA chip sustains a higher continuous operating point.

Memory configuration is another major divider. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc G3 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, so no fixed bandwidth figure exists in the database. The dedicated 12 GB allocation and 432.0 GB/s throughput give the NVIDIA part a decisive advantage in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though the Arc G3's shared memory approach allows flexible capacity allocation depending on the host system.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc G3 wins in power efficiency and integration. Its TDP is 25 W against 100 W for the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation, a 4:1 difference in favor of Intel. Both are IGP-class parts with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent or no display outputs, but the Arc G3 draws a quarter of the power. For fanless or passively cooled designs, or for systems with tight thermal envelopes, the Arc G3's power profile is the clear advantage.

The Arc G3 also uses Intel's 3 nm process node, while the RTX 3500 uses TSMC's 5 nm node. The Intel part lists a 3 nm process, which suggests a more advanced lithography, though the database records no transistor count or die size for the Arc G3. The RTX 3500, by contrast, has full die details: 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The Intel part's transistor density is unrecorded, so a direct efficiency comparison at the transistor level is not possible from the data.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation wins in every measured compute category. Shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, tensor cores, FP32, FP16, texture rate, pixel rate, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity all favor NVIDIA. The RTX 3500 has 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores; the Arc G3 has 10 RT cores and no tensor core count recorded. The NVIDIA part also uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, whereas the Arc G3 uses an IGP bus interface. The PCIe 4.0 x16 connection provides a wider, faster path to the host system, which matters for data transfer and for any workloads that rely on CPU-GPU communication.

The Arc G3's memory being system-shared means its effective bandwidth is "System Dependent," which could range widely across host platforms. The RTX 3500's fixed 432.0 GB/s is a known quantity. For applications that need predictable memory performance, the NVIDIA part has the advantage. For applications that can leverage large system memory pools, the Arc G3 might access more total capacity, but the database does not specify a maximum.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation occupies a different performance class entirely, with 3.75 times the FP32 throughput, 3.75 times the texture rate, 3 times the pixel rate, and 432.0 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth versus a system-dependent figure for the Intel part. Any workload that is compute-bound, texture-bound, or memory-bandwidth-bound will favor the NVIDIA part by a wide margin.

The Intel Arc G3's case rests on its 25 W TDP and 3 nm process. It delivers 6.144 TFLOPS at a quarter of the power draw, which yields a FP32-per-watt ratio of approximately 0.246 TFLOPS per watt, against the RTX 3500's 0.230 TFLOPS per watt. The Intel part is slightly ahead on raw FP32 efficiency per watt, though the NVIDIA part's 1:1 FP16 ratio (23.04 TFLOPS at 23.04 TFLOPS) means the RTX 3500 is far more efficient in half-precision work, delivering 0.230 TFLOPS per watt versus the Arc G3's 0.492 TFLOPS per watt at 2:1 but only 0.246 TFLOPS at the same ratio as the NVIDIA part. The NVIDIA part's FP16 performance is 1.88 times higher despite drawing 4 times the power, so in FP16-heavy workloads the NVIDIA part is the efficiency leader.

The Arc G3 also lacks recorded tensor cores, while the RTX 3500 has 160. For AI inference or training workloads that rely on tensor operations, the RTX 3500 has a structural advantage that cannot be compensated by raw shader throughput. The RTX 3500's 40 RT cores versus 10 for the Arc G3 similarly positions NVIDIA ahead for ray-traced rendering.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level compatibility is identical. The production status for both is Active. The RTX 3500 has a recorded predecessor (Ampere-MW) and successor (Blackwell-MW), while the Arc G3 has no predecessor or successor recorded. The RTX 3500 was released on 2023-03-20, while the Arc G3's release date is 2026-05-31, a gap of over three years that explains the architectural generational differences.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 23.04 TFLOPS, which is 3.75 times the 6.144 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc G3.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Arc G3 has a TDP of 25 W, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has a TDP of 100 W. The Intel part draws one quarter of the power.

Q: Does the Intel Arc G3 have dedicated memory?

A: No, the Arc G3 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth. The RTX 3500 has 12 GB of GDDR6 with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Intel Arc G3 uses a 3 nm process from Intel, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3500 has 40 RT cores, compared to 10 RT cores for the Intel Arc G3.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

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

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc G3 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture using the Panther Lake chip, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the Ada-MW generation. These are fundamentally different design families with different priorities.

The Arc G3's Xe3-LPG is Intel's low-power graphics architecture, optimized for integration into mobile or compact systems. Its 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs represent a modest configuration aimed at efficiency. The 10 RT cores provide entry-level ray tracing capability. The database records no tensor cores for the Arc G3, meaning its AI acceleration relies on shader-based compute or is absent.

The RTX 3500's Ada Lovelace architecture is a full-featured design with 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. The tensor core count is particularly significant, as it provides dedicated hardware for matrix operations common in AI workloads. The 35,800 million transistor count on a 294 mm² die with 121.8M transistors per mm² density reflects a dense, compute-heavy design.

The memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Arc G3 shares system memory, meaning its capacity and bandwidth depend entirely on the host platform. The RTX 3500 has a fixed 12 GB GDDR6 allocation with a 192-bit bus and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, providing predictable, dedicated memory performance. The Arc G3's system-shared approach can be flexible but is subject to system contention and platform variability.

The bus interface also diverges. The Arc G3 uses an IGP (integrated graphics processor) bus, typical for parts soldered to the host. The RTX 3500 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, a discrete-style connection that offers dedicated high-bandwidth communication with the host. This difference affects data transfer rates and the ability to use the GPU in different system configurations.

Clock strategy differs as well. The Arc G3's 300 MHz base to 2400 MHz boost represents a wide dynamic range, suggesting aggressive power gating and burst-oriented operation. The RTX 3500's 1725 MHz base to 2250 MHz boost is a narrower range, indicating a more sustained operating point. The Arc G3's boost clock is actually higher than the RTX 3500's boost by 150 MHz, but the RTX 3500's vastly larger shader count overwhelms this clock advantage.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The process node is 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. The transistor count is unknown for the Arc G3 but 35,800 million for the RTX 3500. The die size is unknown for the Arc G3 but 294 mm² for the RTX 3500.

Base clocks are 300 MHz for the Arc G3 and 1725 MHz for the RTX 3500. Boost clocks are 2400 MHz for the Arc G3 and 2250 MHz for the RTX 3500. Memory is system-shared with system-dependent bandwidth for the Arc G3, versus 12 GB GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth for the RTX 3500.

Shading units total 1280 for the Arc G3 and 5120 for the RTX 3500. TMUs are 40 versus 160. ROPs are 20 versus 64. RT cores are 10 versus 40. Tensor cores are not recorded for the Arc G3 but number 160 for the RTX 3500.

Pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s for the Arc G3 and 144.0 GPixel/s for the RTX 3500. Texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s versus 360.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 6.144 TFLOPS versus 23.04 TFLOPS. FP16 is 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 23.04 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP is 25 W for the Arc G3 and 100 W for the RTX 3500. The suggested PSU is not recorded for the Arc G3 but is 300 W for the RTX 3500. Both use IGP slot width and no power connectors. The bus interface is IGP for the Arc G3 and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 3500.

Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the Arc G3 and none for the RTX 3500. API support is identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are 2026-05-31 for the Arc G3 and 2023-03-20 for the RTX 3500. The RTX 3500 has a predecessor (Ampere-MW) and successor (Blackwell-MW); the Arc G3 has neither recorded. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.