Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

The Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA H20 NVL16 occupy opposite extremes of the GPU spectrum. The recorded data shows a compact, low-power graphics card designed for embedded and entry-level workloads, while the other is a massive server accelerator aimed at high-throughput compute environments. The specification sheets reveal almost no overlap in intended use, performance class, or physical design. This analysis compares the two based solely on the database entries for each product.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two parts. No recorded measurements pit them against each other in any workload, which is unsurprising given their disparate target markets. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs, meaning neither has accumulated a meaningful set of performance data in the database. The wins counter for each product stands at zero.

Without direct comparative scores, the specification data provides the only basis for performance projection. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part offers approximately 12.9 times the raw single-precision throughput. In FP16, the gap narrows slightly in relative terms: the NVIDIA part delivers 79.07 TFLOPS against the Intel part's 6.144 TFLOPS, a ratio of roughly 12.9 to 1 as well. Both use a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, so the proportional difference remains constant.

The pixel throughput figures show a smaller gap. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 produces 47.52 GPixel/s, while the Intel Arc A310E produces 32.00 GPixel/s. That represents a 1.49 times advantage for the NVIDIA part. Texture throughput diverges more sharply: 617.8 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part versus 64.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 9.65 times difference. The NVIDIA part's 312 texture mapping units and 9984 shading units dwarf the Intel part's 32 TMUs and 768 shading units.

Memory bandwidth presents the most extreme difference. The H20 NVL16 accesses 4.03 TB/s across a 6144-bit HBM3 interface, while the A310E manages 124.0 GB/s over a 64-bit GDDR6 bus. The NVIDIA part holds a 32.5 times bandwidth advantage. Memory capacity differs by 24 times: 96 GB versus 4 GB.

The Intel part does hold advantages in certain feature categories. It provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the NVIDIA part has no display outputs at all. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three graphics APIs. These differences confirm that the A310E functions as a display-capable graphics card, whereas the H20 NVL16 is a compute accelerator without any video output capability.

Clock speeds favor the Intel part on paper. Its base and boost clocks both sit at 2000 MHz, while the NVIDIA part runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. The Intel card's memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) also exceeds the NVIDIA part's 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective). These clock advantages do little to offset the massive differences in core count, memory width, and memory type.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products with no meaningful overlap in performance class or application. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 should be selected for compute-intensive server workloads that require large memory capacity, extreme memory bandwidth, and high FP32 or FP16 throughput. Its 96 GB of HBM3 memory, 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, and 39.54 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it in a completely different performance tier than the Intel Arc A310E.

The Intel Arc A310E should be selected for systems that need graphics output, low power consumption, and a compact physical footprint. Its 75 W TDP, single-slot design, lack of external power connectors, and four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs make it suitable for embedded or edge applications. The NVIDIA part consumes 400 W and requires an 800 W suggested power supply, making it impractical for anything but a server chassis with dedicated power delivery.

The production status reinforces this split. The Intel Arc A310E is listed as end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 is listed as active, released on 2025-09-01, with a predecessor of Server Ada and a successor of Server Blackwell. The Intel part represents a finished product cycle, while the NVIDIA part is a current-generation server offering.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more FP32 compute power?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, compared to 3.072 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc A310E. The NVIDIA part holds roughly a 12.9 times advantage in this metric.

Q: Can either GPU output video to displays?

A: Only the Intel Arc A310E can. It includes four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 lists no display outputs and reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part provides 24 times the capacity and 32.5 times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements of each card?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP, a single-slot design, no external power connectors, and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has a 400 W TDP, uses an SXM module form factor, and requires a suggested power supply of 800 W.

Q: Which GPU supports more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 contains 9984 shading units, while the Intel Arc A310E contains 768. The NVIDIA part also has 312 TMUs and 24 ROPs, versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs for the Intel part.

Q: What is the production status of each product?

A: The Intel Arc A310E is end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with a successor of Battlemage. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 is active, released on 2025-09-01, with a successor of Server Blackwell.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every measured specification. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses the GH100 chip built on the Hopper architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. Transistor density measures 45.9M per mm² for the Intel part and 98.3M per mm² for the NVIDIA part.

The Intel card runs at 2000 MHz base and boost clocks, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA module runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost, with memory at 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective). The Intel part uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, while the NVIDIA part uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus.

The Intel card has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA module has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores, with no ray tracing core count listed. The Intel part produces 32.00 GPixel/s and 64.00 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA part produces 47.52 GPixel/s and 617.8 GTexel/s.

The Intel card consumes 75 W, uses a single-slot form factor, has no external power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The NVIDIA module consumes 400 W, uses an SXM module form factor, lists no power connectors, and suggests an 800 W power supply. The Intel card connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the NVIDIA module uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

The Intel card measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The NVIDIA module has no dimensions listed in the database. The Intel card provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the NVIDIA module provides no outputs. The Intel card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA module reports N/A for all three.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A310E belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation and uses the Xe-HPG architecture. Its chip, the DG2-128, is built on TSMC's 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors. The architecture includes 6 ray tracing cores, reflecting a graphics-first design. The predecessor is listed as Xe Graphics and the successor as Battlemage.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation and uses the Hopper architecture. Its chip, the GH100, is built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 80,000 million transistors. The architecture includes 312 tensor cores, emphasizing AI and compute acceleration rather than raster graphics. The predecessor is listed as Server Ada and the successor as Server Blackwell.

The transistor counts alone indicate the scale difference: 7,200 million for the Intel chip versus 80,000 million for the NVIDIA chip. The die sizes follow the same pattern, with the GH100 measuring 814 mm² against the DG2-128's 157 mm². The NVIDIA chip achieves a higher transistor density of 98.3M per mm² despite its larger size, compared to 45.9M per mm² for the Intel chip.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The Intel part uses GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, a conventional graphics memory configuration. The NVIDIA part uses HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, a stacked-memory configuration designed for bandwidth-hungry server workloads. The 6144-bit bus width is 96 times wider than the Intel part's 64-bit bus.

Compute feature sets differ by design intent. The Intel part includes ray tracing cores and full graphics API support, positioning it as a render-capable GPU. The NVIDIA part includes tensor cores and no graphics API support, positioning it as a pure compute accelerator. The Intel part's 6 nm process and 75 W TDP target low-power embedded scenarios, while the NVIDIA part's 5 nm process and 400 W TDP target high-performance server environments. The recorded data shows no area of overlap in architecture goals, feature sets, or physical requirements.