Intel Arc A380M vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

The Intel Arc A380M and NVIDIA B200 SXM6 occupy entirely different segments of the GPU market, and the recorded data confirms that they share almost no practical use cases. The Arc A380M is a 35 W mobile module based on the Alchemist Xe-HPG architecture, designed for portable devices with a 6 GB GDDR6 memory subsystem. The B200 SXM6 is a 1000 W server accelerator built on the Blackwell architecture, featuring 180 GB of HBM3e memory and a 1400 W suggested power supply. The benchmark database indicates that the B200 SXM6 delivers roughly 17 times the FP32 throughput of the Arc A380M, while the Arc A380M supports graphics APIs that the B200 SXM6 does not. These two products are not competitors; the data simply documents their respective capabilities.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of purpose. The Intel Arc A380M is suited for tasks requiring a compact, low-power GPU with display output capabilities. Its 35 W TDP and MXM-A (3.1) bus interface place it in the portable device segment, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 makes it a functional graphics solution. The B200 SXM6, by contrast, has no display outputs and no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. It is a compute-oriented accelerator.

For compute workloads that depend on FP32 or FP16 arithmetic, the B200 SXM6 is the stronger choice. Its FP32 throughput of 69.34 TFLOPS is more than 16 times the Arc A380M's 4.096 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance of 69.34 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio also dwarfs the Arc A380M's 8.192 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. Memory bandwidth tells a similar story: 8.19 TB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, a difference of over 44 times.

For rendering and graphics tasks, the Arc A380M is the only viable option between the two. The B200 SXM6 does not expose any graphics APIs, whereas the Arc A380M supports modern DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan versions. The Arc A380M also has a higher pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s compared to the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s, despite the latter having vastly more shading units and texture mapping units.

The B200 SXM6 has a higher transistor count (208,000 million versus 7,200 million), a larger die size (1628 mm² versus 157 mm²), and a higher transistor density (127.8M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm²). The Arc A380M uses a 6 nm process, while the B200 SXM6 uses a 5 nm process, both from TSMC. The B200 SXM6 also has a newer release date, coming in 2024 versus 2023.

Neither product leads in every recorded metric. The Arc A380M wins on pixel rate, power efficiency per watt (4.096 TFLOPS at 35 W versus 69.34 TFLOPS at 1000 W), and API support. The B200 SXM6 wins decisively on raw compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, texture rate, and shading unit count. The verdict is straightforward: choose the Arc A380M for graphics rendering in a portable form factor, and choose the B200 SXM6 for high-throughput compute in a server environment.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc A380M uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, falling into the Alchemist generation for Arc 3 Mobile. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip built on the Blackwell architecture, classified under the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation.

The process nodes differ. The Arc A380M is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The B200 SXM6 is fabricated on a 5 nm process at the same foundry. The transistor counts reflect the scale gap: the Arc A380M contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a density of 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The B200 SXM6 contains 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, yielding a density of 127.8 million transistors per square millimeter.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The Arc A380M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, producing 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, producing 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The B200 SXM6 also records a memory clock of 2000 MHz at 8 Gbps effective, while the Arc A380M records a memory clock of 1937 MHz at 15.5 Gbps effective.

The compute unit configurations diverge sharply. The Arc A380M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 raster operation units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The B200 SXM6 has 18944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, 24 raster operation units, and 592 tensor cores. The B200 SXM6 does not list ray tracing cores in the database, while the Arc A380M does not list tensor cores.

The clock behavior is also distinct. The Arc A380M has a base clock of 1550 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The B200 SXM6 has a base clock of 120 MHz and a boost clock of 1830 MHz. The low base clock on the B200 SXM6 is typical for a large server accelerator that relies on boost behavior under load.

The form factors and interfaces differ. The Arc A380M uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-A (3.1) bus interface and portable device dependent display outputs. The B200 SXM6 uses an SXM Module slot width with a PCIe 6.0 x16 bus interface and no display outputs. The B200 SXM6 lists a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the Arc A380M lists no suggested PSU. Its 35 W TDP is far below the 1000 W TDP of the B200 SXM6.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is approximately 16.9 times the 4.096 TFLOPS recorded for the Intel Arc A380M.

Q: Does the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 support graphics rendering APIs?

A: No. The database records DirectX as N/A, OpenGL as N/A, and Vulkan as N/A for the B200 SXM6. It also lists no display outputs. The Intel Arc A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e memory, which is 30 times the 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on the Arc A380M. The B200 SXM6 also has a much wider 8192-bit bus compared to the 96-bit bus on the Arc A380M.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference?

A: The Intel Arc A380M has a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, which is higher than the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s. This is notable because the B200 SXM6 has far more shading units, but its lower pixel rate indicates that the Arc A380M is more efficient in this specific rasterization metric.

Q: Which GPU has a higher texture rate?

A: The B200 SXM6 has a texture rate of 1,083.4 GTexel/s, compared to 128.0 GTexel/s for the Arc A380M. The B200 SXM6 is roughly 8.5 times faster in this metric.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Arc A380M has a TDP of 35 W, while the B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W. The B200 SXM6 also lists a suggested power supply of 1400 W, while the Arc A380M lists none.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products in the database.

• Chip: DG2-128 (Intel) versus GB100 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: Xe-HPG (Intel) versus Blackwell (NVIDIA)
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) versus Server Blackwell (Bxx)
• Process Node: 6 nm (Intel) versus 5 nm (NVIDIA)
• Transistors: 7,200 million (Intel) versus 208,000 million (NVIDIA)
• Die Size: 157 mm² (Intel) versus 1628 mm² (NVIDIA)
• Transistor Density: 45.9M per mm² (Intel) versus 127.8M per mm² (NVIDIA)
• Base Clock: 1550 MHz (Intel) versus 120 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Boost Clock: 2000 MHz (Intel) versus 1830 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Memory Clock: 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective (Intel) versus 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective (NVIDIA)
• Memory Size: 6 GB (Intel) versus 180 GB (NVIDIA)
• Memory Type: GDDR6 (Intel) versus HBM3e (NVIDIA)
• Memory Bus Width: 96 bit (Intel) versus 8192 bit (NVIDIA)
• Memory Bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s (Intel) versus 8.19 TB/s (NVIDIA)
• Shading Units: 1024 (Intel) versus 18944 (NVIDIA)
• TMUs: 64 (Intel) versus 592 (NVIDIA)
• ROPs: 32 (Intel) versus 24 (NVIDIA)
• RT Cores: 8 (Intel) versus null (NVIDIA)
• Tensor Cores: null (Intel) versus 592 (NVIDIA)
• Pixel Rate: 64.00 GPixel/s (Intel) versus 43.92 GPixel/s (NVIDIA)
• Texture Rate: 128.0 GTexel/s (Intel) versus 1,083.4 GTexel/s (NVIDIA)
• FP32: 4.096 TFLOPS (Intel) versus 69.34 TFLOPS (NVIDIA)
• FP16: 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) (Intel) versus 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) (NVIDIA)
• TDP: 35 W (Intel) versus 1000 W (NVIDIA)
• Slot Width: MXM Module (Intel) versus SXM Module (NVIDIA)
• Suggested PSU: null (Intel) versus 1400 W (NVIDIA)
• Bus Interface: MXM-A (3.1) (Intel) versus PCIe 6.0 x16 (NVIDIA)
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent (Intel) versus No outputs (NVIDIA)
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) (Intel) versus N/A (NVIDIA)
• OpenGL: 4.6 (Intel) versus N/A (NVIDIA)
• Vulkan: 1.4 (Intel) versus N/A (NVIDIA)
• Release Date: 2023-01-23 (Intel) versus 2024-10-31 (NVIDIA)
• Predecessor: null (Intel) versus Server Hopper (NVIDIA)
• Successor: null (Intel) versus Server Rubin (NVIDIA)
• Launch MSRP: null (Intel) versus 34,999 USD (NVIDIA)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data for these two products is empty, so the comparison relies entirely on the recorded specification-level metrics. The largest wins in each direction are clear from the numbers.

The B200 SXM6 dominates in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 69.34 TFLOPS is 16.9 times the Arc A380M's 4.096 TFLOPS. In FP16, the B200 SXM6 records 69.34 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Arc A380M records 8.192 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The 1:1 ratio on the B200 SXM6 means it does not rely on packed arithmetic to reach its FP16 number, whereas the Arc A380M's 2:1 ratio indicates its FP16 throughput is achieved through paired operations.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive margin. The B200 SXM6's 8.19 TB/s is 44.0 times the Arc A380M's 186.0 GB/s. The memory capacity advantage is similarly large: 180 GB versus 6 GB. The 8192-bit bus on the B200 SXM6 is 85.3 times wider than the 96-bit bus on the Arc A380M. These figures confirm that the B200 SXM6 is built for memory-intensive server workloads.

Texture rate favors the B200 SXM6 by a large margin. At 1,083.4 GTexel/s, it is 8.5 times the Arc A380M's 128.0 GTexel/s. The shading unit count also favors the B200 SXM6, with 18944 units versus 1024, an 18.5 times difference. Tensor cores are present only on the B200 SXM6, which lists 592 of them, while the Arc A380M has none.

The Arc A380M has its own wins. Its pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s exceeds the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s by 45.7 percent. This is a meaningful result for rasterization-focused tasks, despite the B200 SXM6's massive compute advantage. The Arc A380M also has 32 ROPs versus 24 on the B200 SXM6, a 33.3 percent advantage in that unit count.

The Arc A380M also leads in power efficiency. At 35 W, it delivers 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 0.117 TFLOPS per watt. The B200 SXM6 at 1000 W delivers 69.34 TFLOPS, which is 0.069 TFLOPS per watt. The Arc A380M is roughly 1.7 times more efficient in FP32 per watt. In FP16, the Arc A380M at 8.192 TFLOPS and 35 W yields 0.234 TFLOPS per watt, versus 0.069 TFLOPS per watt for the B200 SXM6, a 3.4 times efficiency gap.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The Arc A380M has a higher base clock of 1550 MHz versus 120 MHz on the B200 SXM6, and a higher boost clock of 2000 MHz versus 1830 MHz. The B200 SXM6 compensates with a vastly larger chip and wider memory subsystem. The lower clocks on the B200 SXM6 are consistent with its 1000 W TDP and server orientation.

The B200 SXM6 has a higher transistor density at 127.8M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm² on the Arc A380M. This reflects both the 5 nm process and the larger die. The B200 SXM6 also uses a different memory type, HBM3e, compared to GDDR6 on the Arc A380M, which explains the bandwidth gap.

The production status for both is listed as Active. The B200 SXM6 has a listed predecessor (Server Hopper) and successor (Server Rubin), while the Arc A380M has neither. The B200 SXM6 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD, while the Arc A380M has none recorded. The B200 SXM6 is also the only one with a suggested PSU, at 1400 W.

The recorded data shows that these GPUs are optimized for opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The Arc A380M is a mobile graphics solution with display outputs, modern API support, and a 35 W power envelope. The B200 SXM6 is a server accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 1000 W power envelope. The benchmark database positions them at the same percentile versus all GPUs (50th), but that percentile does not reflect the functional incompatibility of their use cases. The Arc A380M is the only one of the two that can render graphics to a screen, and the B200 SXM6 is the only one of the two that can sustain server-scale compute throughput.