Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA B200 SXM6 occupy entirely different segments of the GPU market, and the data confirms they are not direct competitors. The Arc A310E is a compact, low-power, end-of-life graphics card built for embedded or small-form-factor systems, while the B200 SXM6 is an active, server-class accelerator module designed for maximum compute throughput. The database shows the B200 SXM6 holds a massive advantage in raw specifications: 18944 shading units versus 768, 69.34 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.072 TFLOPS, and 180 GB of HBM3e memory versus 4 GB of GDDR6. However, the Arc A310E offers features the B200 lacks entirely, including display outputs (4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0), DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a 75 W power envelope. The choice depends on the workload: the B200 SXM6 for compute-heavy server tasks, the Arc A310E for graphics output and low-power embedded use. The B200 SXM6 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD. The Arc A310E has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures from different manufacturers. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process by TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip based on Blackwell architecture, part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC, with 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². The B200's die is more than ten times larger and packs nearly 29 times more transistors. The B200 also integrates 592 tensor cores, while the Arc A310E has none listed. Conversely, the Arc A310E includes 6 ray-tracing cores, while the B200 lists no RT cores. The Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 SXM6 reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for client graphics APIs. The Arc A310E uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface; the B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16. The B200's base clock is 120 MHz with a boost of 1830 MHz, while the Arc A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost. Memory architecture also diverges sharply: the Arc uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 SXM6 wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 69.34 TFLOPS is over 22 times higher than the Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,083.4 GTexel/s dwarfs the Arc's 64.00 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 43.92 GPixel/s exceeds the Arc's 32.00 GPixel/s. The B200's memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is approximately 66 times greater than the Arc's 124.0 GB/s. The B200 also offers 592 tensor cores, which the Arc lacks entirely, making the B200 the clear choice for AI and machine learning workloads. The B200's 180 GB of HBM3e memory provides enormous capacity for large datasets, far beyond the Arc's 4 GB.

The Arc A310E wins in practical graphics deployment. It provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, whereas the B200 has no display outputs. The Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling standard gaming and graphics applications; the B200 reports N/A for these APIs. The Arc consumes 75 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the B200 draws 1000 W and requires a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Arc is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width; the B200 is an SXM Module with no listed dimensions. The Arc uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 slot, which is more accessible in standard systems than the B200's PCIe 6.0 x16 server interface. The Arc is end-of-life, but its predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage, indicating a product line focused on mainstream graphics. The B200's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin, confirming its server accelerator lineage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth from HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The Intel Arc A310E has 124.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Can the Intel Arc A310E output video to displays?

A: Yes, the Arc A310E has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has no display outputs.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The Intel Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 592 tensor cores. The Intel Arc A310E lists no tensor cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark scores for either GPU, and both have an identical percentile vs. all GPUs of 50, with an average benchmark score of 0. The nearest rivals lists are empty for both. Therefore, the analysis relies on specification comparisons. The largest win for the B200 SXM6 is in memory bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus 124.0 GB/s, a difference of roughly 66 times. The FP32 compute gap is also enormous: 69.34 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS, meaning the B200 delivers about 22.6 times the raw floating-point throughput. The texture rate shows a similar pattern: 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, a factor of about 16.9 times. The B200's shading unit count of 18944 versus 768 is a 24.7 times advantage. The B200 also offers 592 tensor cores, while the Arc has none, which is a categorical difference for AI workloads.

The Arc A310E wins in areas that matter for graphics deployment. Its pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s is lower than the B200's 43.92 GPixel/s, but the Arc supports 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the B200 has none. The Arc's memory clock runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the B200's memory clock is 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective); the B200's higher clock does not compensate for the Arc's functional display capability. The Arc has a base clock of 2000 MHz, far higher than the B200's 120 MHz base, though the B200 boosts to 1830 MHz. The Arc's power draw of 75 W versus 1000 W makes it suitable for systems where the B200's power requirement is prohibitive. The Arc's dimensions (168 mm length, 69 mm height, 20 mm width) and single-slot form factor allow installation in compact chassis, whereas the B200 is an SXM Module with no listed dimensions. The Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which is compatible with mainstream motherboards; the B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16, a newer server interface.

The B200's release date is 2024-10-31, while the Arc's is 2024-03-31. The B200 is marked as Active production status, while the Arc is End-of-life. The Arc's architecture is Alchemist (Arc 3) with a successor of Battlemage; the B200's architecture is Blackwell with a successor of Server Rubin. The B200's foundry process is 5 nm, smaller than the Arc's 6 nm, and its transistor density of 127.8M per mm² is nearly three times the Arc's 45.9M per mm².

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Field | Intel Arc A310E | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 |

|------|-----------------|------------------|

| Manufacturer | Intel | NVIDIA |

| Chip | DG2-128 | GB100 |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Blackwell |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | Server Blackwell (Bxx) |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 208,000 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 1628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 127.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 120 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 1830 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 180 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM3e |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 8192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 8.19 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 18944 |

| TMUs | 32 | 592 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 6 | null |

| Tensor Cores | null | 592 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.00 GPixel/s | 43.92 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 64.00 GTexel/s | 1,083.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.072 TFLOPS | 69.34 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) | 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 1000 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 1400 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Length | 168 mm 6.6 inches | null |

| Height | 69 mm 2.7 inches | null |

| Width | 20 mm 0.8 inches | null |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-03-31 | 2024-10-31 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Server Hopper |

| Successor | Battlemage | Server Rubin |

| Launch MSRP | null | 34,999 USD |