Intel Arc A380E x2 vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc A380E x2 or the NVIDIA B200 SXM6. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and zero recorded wins in head-to-head comparisons. This absence of measured performance data means the analysis must rely entirely on the architectural specifications and theoretical throughput figures listed in the database.

The raw compute figures, however, tell a stark story. The Intel Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 reaches 69.34 TFLOPS in the same precision. That represents a 16.9x advantage for the NVIDIA part based purely on the recorded FP32 specifications. In FP16, the gap narrows slightly on paper: the Intel card achieves 8.192 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the B200 matches its FP32 output at 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, still a 8.5x difference.

Texture throughput shows an even wider separation. The Arc A380E x2 posts 128.0 GTexel/s, while the B200 SXM6 reaches 1,083.4 GTexel/s, an 8.5x delta. Pixel rate flips the expectation, however. The Intel part records 64.00 GPixel/s versus 43.92 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA accelerator. That 1.46x win for the Arc card stems from its 32 ROPs compared to the B200's 24 ROPs, despite the latter having vastly more shading hardware.

Memory bandwidth is where the B200 dominates beyond all other metrics. Its 8.19 TB/s of HBM3e bandwidth is 44x the 186.0 GB/s available on the Arc A380E x2. The NVIDIA module pairs 180 GB of memory with an 8192-bit bus, while the Intel card uses 6 GB of GDDR6 across a 96-bit interface. The effective memory clock rates differ as well: 15.5 Gbps on the Arc versus 8 Gbps on the B200, though the NVIDIA part's enormous bus width renders that clock deficit irrelevant.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380E x2 claims the pixel throughput crown. Its 64.00 GPixel/s fill rate exceeds the B200's 43.92 GPixel/s, which can benefit workloads that stress rasterization output stages. The card also carries 32 ROPs versus 24 on the NVIDIA side, reinforcing its advantage in traditional frame-buffer operations. The Arc additionally supports a full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set with version 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a usable graphics solution. The B200 SXM6 lists N/A for all three APIs, indicating it is not designed for conventional graphics rendering.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins on every other measurable compute front. Its 18944 shading units dwarf the Arc's 1024, and its 592 tensor cores provide dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the Intel part lacks entirely. The 592 texture mapping units give the B200 an 9.25x count advantage over the Arc's 64 TMUs. Ray tracing also splits the pair: the Arc includes 8 dedicated RT cores, while the B200 reports no RT core count, suggesting a different workload focus.

Memory capacity and bandwidth make the B200 the clear choice for large-model inference and training. The 180 GB HBM3e pool is 30x larger than the Arc's 6 GB GDDR6, and the 8.19 TB/s bandwidth enables data movement that the 186.0 GB/s Intel part cannot approach. The B200's 69.34 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 also makes it suitable for mixed-precision compute, while the Arc's FP16 rate is only 2x its FP32, indicating a more limited compute acceleration path.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from entirely different architectural lineages. Intel uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist generation for Arc 3 products. NVIDIA employs the Blackwell architecture with the GB100 chip, belonging to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The process nodes differ by one step: Intel builds on TSMC's 6 nm process, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm process. Transistor counts show a massive scale difference, with the B200 packing 208,000 million transistors versus 7,200 million on the Arc, a 28.9x gap. Die size also diverges sharply: 1628 mm² for the GB100 against 157 mm² for the DG2-128, which yields transistor densities of 127.8M per mm² and 45.9M per mm² respectively.

Clock behavior reveals contrasting design philosophies. The Arc A380E x2 runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, a steady-state design typical of compact graphics cards. The B200 SXM6 lists a 120 MHz base clock with a 1830 MHz boost, indicating aggressive power management that ramps up only under load. Memory clocks also follow different paths: the Intel card uses 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective transfer, while the B200 runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, relying on its 8192-bit interface to achieve massive bandwidth.

The memory subsystems could not be more different. Intel pairs 6 GB of GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus for 186.0 GB/s. NVIDIA stacks 180 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus for 8.19 TB/s. This 44x bandwidth difference reflects the B200's server-oriented design, where memory throughput is the primary constraint for large-scale compute workloads.

Form factors and power delivery also separate the pair. The Arc A380E x2 is a single-slot card measuring 265 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, using a single 6-pin power connector. The B200 SXM6 is an SXM module with no listed dimensions, no power connector details, and a 1000 W TDP. The suggested PSU ratings are 300 W for the Intel card and 1400 W for the NVIDIA module, a 4.67x difference in system power requirements.

Interface support adds another layer. The Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16 and offers no display outputs, confirming its role as a compute-only accelerator. The Arc also includes 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores, while the B200 fields 18944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 records 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 reaches 4.096 TFLOPS. The B200 leads by a factor of 16.9x based on the database specifications.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 offers 180 GB of HBM3e memory, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 provides 6 GB of GDDR6. The B200's capacity is 30x larger.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380E x2 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A380E x2 includes 8 dedicated RT cores. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 lists no RT core count in the database, and its API support is marked as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The B200 SXM6 delivers 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth through an 8192-bit HBM3e interface. The Arc A380E x2 provides 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit GDDR6 bus. This is a 44x difference in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 18944 shading units, compared to 1024 on the Intel Arc A380E x2. The B200 also includes 592 tensor cores, which the Arc does not have.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Intel DG2-128 is fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA GB100 uses a 5 nm TSMC process. The B200's die measures 1628 mm² versus 157 mm² for the Arc.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc A380E x2 | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 |

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

| 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 | 6 GB | 180 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM3e |

| Memory Bus Width | 96 bit | 8192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 186.0 GB/s | 8.19 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 18944 |

| TMUs | 64 | 592 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 8 | null |

| Tensor Cores | null | 592 |

| Pixel Rate | 64.00 GPixel/s | 43.92 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 128.0 GTexel/s | 1,083.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.096 TFLOPS | 69.34 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) | 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 130 W | 1000 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | null |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 1400 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 | No outputs |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| 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 |