Intel Arc A380E x2 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc A380E x2 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the Intel Arc A380E x2 has no benchmark entries, no average score, and no nearest rivals listed. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB, however, has a full set of benchmark results across multiple test suites, which allows for an analysis of its standalone performance profile.

The RTX 3050 6 GB scores 1515 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, a modern DirectX 12 test. Its PassMark scores show 10738 in G3D, 5192 in GPU Compute, 882 in G2D, 124 in DirectX 9, 72 in DirectX 11, 59 in DirectX 10, and 53 in DirectX 12. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 2329, placing the card at the 15th percentile of all GPUs in the database. That percentile indicates that 85% of recorded GPUs score higher, which positions the RTX 3050 6 GB as a low-range part in the current database population.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 has an average benchmark score of 0 and a 50th percentile ranking, but with no actual benchmark data, that percentile is not meaningful for direct comparison. The data cannot confirm any wins for either product. The wins counters show 0 for both products, reflecting the absence of head-to-head measurements.

Without direct comparison data, the only quantitative benchmark analysis possible is the RTX 3050 6 GB's own scores. Its PassMark DirectX 11 score of 72 is higher than its DirectX 12 score of 53, which suggests the architecture performs relatively better in legacy APIs. The DirectX 9 score of 124 is the highest of the four DirectX tests, reinforcing that pattern. The GPU Compute score of 5192 is roughly half the G3D score of 10738, indicating compute workloads produce about half the throughput of graphics workloads in this test suite.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and entirely different architectural lineages. Intel uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). NVIDIA uses the GA107 chip based on Ampere architecture, part of the GeForce 30 series. The process nodes differ substantially: Intel uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, while NVIDIA uses an 8 nm process from Samsung. The Intel die is 157 mm² with 7,200 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The NVIDIA die is 200 mm² with 8,700 million transistors, giving a density of 43.5 million per mm². The Intel chip packs more transistors per square millimeter despite having fewer total transistors and a smaller die.

Shader core counts diverge significantly. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA RTX 3050 6 GB has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA has more than double the shading units and 8 more TMUs, while ROP counts match at 32. Ray tracing hardware differs as well: Intel has 8 ray tracing cores, while NVIDIA has 18. NVIDIA also includes 72 tensor cores, while the Intel part has no tensor core field listed.

Clock speeds show an interesting contrast. The Intel GPU runs at a flat 2,000 MHz for both base and boost clocks. The NVIDIA GPU has a 1,042 MHz base clock and a 1,470 MHz boost clock. Intel sustains a much higher clock across the board, over 500 MHz higher than NVIDIA's boost clock. This clock advantage partially compensates for Intel's lower shader count, though the final throughput figures still favor NVIDIA.

Memory configurations are similar but not identical. Both use 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus. The Intel memory clock is 1,937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective, producing 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock is 1,750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, producing 168.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel holds an 18 GB/s bandwidth advantage, about 10.7% higher.

Throughput numbers tell a clear story. The Intel GPU delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The NVIDIA GPU delivers 6.774 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.774 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). NVIDIA leads FP32 by about 65%, while Intel's FP16 output is 20.9% higher due to its 2:1 ratio. Pixel rates favor Intel at 64.00 GPixel/s versus 47.04 GPixel/s, a 36% advantage. Texture rates favor Intel at 128.0 GTexel/s versus 105.8 GTexel/s, a 21% advantage. These rasterization throughput metrics favor Intel despite NVIDIA's larger shader count, likely due to Intel's much higher clock speed.

Power characteristics differ dramatically. The Intel part draws 130 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a 300 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA part draws only 70 W TDP, requires no power connector, and has a 250 W suggested PSU. NVIDIA consumes nearly half the power while delivering higher FP32 throughput. The physical designs also differ: Intel is single-slot with 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while NVIDIA is dual-slot with 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are end-of-life products. The Intel part was released on 2024-03-31, and the NVIDIA part on 2024-02-01. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB delivers 6.774 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc A380E x2 delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. NVIDIA leads by approximately 65%.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 186.0 GB/s bandwidth from 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus at 15.5 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA RTX 3050 6 GB has 168.0 GB/s from the same memory size and bus width but at 14 Gbps effective. Intel holds an 18 GB/s advantage.

Q: What power connector does each GPU require?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and has a 130 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA RTX 3050 6 GB requires no power connector, has a 70 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3050 6 GB has 2,304 shading units. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 1,024. NVIDIA has over double the shading units.

Q: What are the ray tracing core counts?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 8 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA RTX 3050 6 GB has 18 ray tracing cores, plus 72 tensor cores, which the Intel part does not list.

Q: How do clock speeds differ?

A: The Intel GPU runs at a constant 2,000 MHz for both base and boost. The NVIDIA GPU runs at 1,042 MHz base and 1,470 MHz boost. Intel's clock is 530 MHz higher than NVIDIA's boost clock.

Q: What display outputs does each GPU provide?

A: The Intel Arc A380E x2 provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA RTX 3050 6 GB provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data does not support a direct performance verdict because the Intel Arc A380E x2 has no recorded benchmark scores. The only measurable performance data belongs to the NVIDIA RTX 3050 6 GB, which sits at the 15th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 2329. The Intel part's 50th percentile ranking appears in the database, but with a zero average score and no benchmark entries, that ranking cannot be verified or compared.

From the architectural specifications, each card targets a different priority. The NVIDIA RTX 3050 6 GB delivers 6.774 TFLOPS FP32, more than double the shading units, 18 ray tracing cores, and 72 tensor cores, all within a 70 W TDP that requires no power connector. The Intel Arc A380E x2 counters with higher clocks at 2,000 MHz, higher memory bandwidth at 186.0 GB/s, higher pixel rate at 64.00 GPixel/s, higher texture rate at 128.0 GTexel/s, and higher FP16 throughput at 8.192 TFLOPS, but it demands 130 W and a 6-pin connector.

For users prioritizing FP32 compute, shader throughput, ray tracing hardware, tensor operations, and minimal power draw, the data points to the NVIDIA part. For users prioritizing rasterization throughput metrics, memory bandwidth, FP16 compute, and higher sustained clocks, the specification sheet points to the Intel part. The absence of direct benchmark data means real-world performance cannot be confirmed from the database, only inferred from the recorded specifications.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The process node differs: Intel uses 6 nm from TSMC, NVIDIA uses 8 nm from Samsung. Transistor counts differ: Intel has 7,200 million, NVIDIA has 8,700 million. Die size differs: Intel is 157 mm², NVIDIA is 200 mm². Transistor density differs: Intel has 45.9 million per mm², NVIDIA has 43.5 million per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. Intel runs 2,000 MHz base and 2,000 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs 1,042 MHz base and 1,470 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ: Intel runs 1,937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective, NVIDIA runs 1,750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective. Memory bandwidth differs: Intel has 186.0 GB/s, NVIDIA has 168.0 GB/s.

Shader resources differ. Intel has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Ray tracing cores differ: Intel has 8, NVIDIA has 18. Tensor cores: Intel has none listed, NVIDIA has 72.

Throughput figures differ. Intel pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s, NVIDIA is 47.04 GPixel/s. Intel texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s, NVIDIA is 105.8 GTexel/s. Intel FP32 is 4.096 TFLOPS, NVIDIA is 6.774 TFLOPS. Intel FP16 is 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1), NVIDIA is 6.774 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specifications differ. Intel TDP is 130 W, NVIDIA is 70 W. Intel uses a single-slot design, NVIDIA uses dual-slot. Intel requires 1x 6-pin power connector, NVIDIA requires none. Intel suggested PSU is 300 W, NVIDIA is 250 W. Intel dimensions are 265 mm length, 127 mm height, 20 mm width. NVIDIA dimensions are 242 mm length, 112 mm height, no width listed.

Display outputs differ. Intel provides 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0. NVIDIA provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Release dates differ: Intel launched 2024-03-31, NVIDIA launched 2024-02-01. The NVIDIA part has a launch MSRP of 179 USD, while the Intel part has no launch MSRP recorded. Both share 6 GB GDDR6 memory, 96-bit bus width, PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. Both are end-of-life products. NVIDIA's predecessor is GeForce 20 and successor is GeForce 40; Intel's predecessor is Xe Graphics and successor is Battlemage.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports several distinct areas where each GPU holds an advantage based on recorded specifications.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB wins in compute throughput. Its 6.774 TFLOPS FP32 exceeds Intel's 4.096 TFLOPS by roughly 65%. Its 2,304 shading units provide more than double Intel's 1,024. Its 18 ray tracing cores more than double Intel's 8, and its 72 tensor cores have no Intel equivalent in the recorded data. Its 70 W TDP with no power connector requirement makes it the lower-power option by a wide margin, with a 250 W suggested PSU versus Intel's 300 W. Its 72 TMUs exceed Intel's 64. Its launch MSRP is 179 USD, which appears once in the database.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 wins in several throughput categories. Its 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds NVIDIA's 47.04 GPixel/s by about 36%. Its 128.0 GTexel/s texture rate exceeds NVIDIA's 105.8 GTexel/s by about 21%. Its 186.0 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds NVIDIA's 168.0 GB/s by 18 GB/s, roughly 10.7%. Its 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 output exceeds NVIDIA's 6.774 TFLOPS, a 20.9% advantage. Its 2,000 MHz boost clock runs 530 MHz higher than NVIDIA's 1,470 MHz boost. Its smaller die at 157 mm² versus 200 mm² and higher transistor density at 45.9 million per mm² versus 43.5 million per mm² indicate a more compact design. Its 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs far exceed NVIDIA's single HDMI and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs in terms of display count and interface version.

The NVIDIA part's benchmark scores, while not directly comparable to the Intel part, show its standalone performance. Its PassMark G3D score of 10738 and GPU Compute score of 5192 represent the only recorded performance data in the database. Its 15th percentile ranking places it low in the overall GPU distribution, a fact that cannot be checked against the Intel part due to missing benchmark data.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1515 provides a modern API reference point, and the PassMark scores show strongest performance in DirectX 9 at 124 and DirectX 11 at 72, with weaker DirectX 12 performance at 53. This suggests the Ampere architecture in this configuration handles legacy APIs more efficiently than modern ones, though no comparison to the Intel part exists.

The Intel part's higher rasterization throughput and memory bandwidth suggest it may handle fill-rate-bound workloads more effectively, while the NVIDIA part's higher shader count, FP32 throughput, and tensor cores suggest it may handle compute-heavy and AI-adjacent workloads more effectively. The absence of benchmark data for the Intel part prevents confirmation of these inferences through measured results.