Intel Arc A380E vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark comparisons between the Intel Arc A380E and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. Consequently, the two GPUs cannot be ranked against each other using measured performance data. The percentile versus all GPUs field places both at the 50th percentile, which reflects a mid-pack standing relative to the full database, but this metric does not differentiate between the two parts.

The absence of benchmark data means that the raw computational throughput figures serve as the only quantitative basis for comparison. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 5.87 times the 4.096 TFLOPS recorded for the Intel Arc A380E. In FP16 workloads, the NVIDIA part maintains 24.02 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The Intel GPU's FP16 rate is exactly double its FP32 rate, indicating a packed execution path, whereas the NVIDIA GPU delivers identical throughput in both precisions.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM achieves 750.7 GTexel/s, which is 5.86 times the 128.0 GTexel/s of the Intel Arc A380E. Pixel fill rates show a narrower gap: the NVIDIA part records 93.84 GPixel/s against 64.00 GPixel/s for the Intel GPU, a 1.47 times advantage. The smaller pixel-rate gap relative to the texture-rate gap suggests the NVIDIA GPU's shading resources scale more aggressively than its render output units.

Memory bandwidth also favors the NVIDIA part. The N1X 40SM records 273.2 GB/s across a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface, while the Arc A380E delivers 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit GDDR6 bus. That is a 1.47 times bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA GPU. The Intel part compensates with a higher effective memory clock: 15.5 Gbps effective versus 8.5 Gbps effective for the NVIDIA part. However, the NVIDIA GPU's 256-bit bus width more than offsets the lower per-pin data rate.

Clock behavior differs markedly between the two. The Intel Arc A380E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost, with no clock variation. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz, a 3.17 times span between the two figures. The NVIDIA GPU's boost clock exceeds the Intel part's sustained clock by 346 MHz, while its base clock sits far lower, indicating a wide dynamic range that can scale down aggressively under light loads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM records 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 5.87 times the 4.096 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A380E.

Q: How do the memory buses differ?

A: The Intel Arc A380E uses a 96-bit GDDR6 interface with 6 GB of memory and 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface with 128 GB of memory and 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has a boost clock of 2000 MHz, identical to its base clock. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz, with a base clock of 741 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 5120 shading units, compared to 1024 shading units on the Intel Arc A380E. The NVIDIA part also has 320 texture mapping units versus 64, and 40 render output units versus 32.

Q: What ray tracing and tensor hardware does each GPU include?

A: The Intel Arc A380E includes 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM includes 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A380E is marked as end-of-life, with a release date of 2024-03-31. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is marked as active, with a release date of 2026-05-31.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380E wins on physical integration and interface flexibility. It uses a single-slot design with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, making it suitable for compact systems. It offers four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, which supports multi-monitor configurations. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface consumes fewer lanes than the NVIDIA part's PCIe 5.0 x16 connection, which can be advantageous in systems with limited lane availability. The Intel part also maintains a fixed 2000 MHz clock across base and boost, which simplifies thermal and power behavior predictions.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins decisively on raw computational resources. Its 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores dwarf the Intel part's 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The 128 GB memory capacity is 21.3 times the Intel part's 6 GB, and the 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is 1.47 times higher. The 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 throughput places it in a different performance class than the Intel Arc A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS.

The NVIDIA part also wins on production longevity. It is marked as active, while the Intel Arc A380E is end-of-life. The NVIDIA GPU uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, which doubles the per-lane bandwidth of the Intel part's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection. Its IGP form factor means it is designed to be integrated into a system rather than installed as a discrete card, which changes the deployment model entirely.

The Intel Arc A380E wins on display output versatility with four DisplayPort 2.0 connections, whereas the NVIDIA N1X 40SM provides a single HDMI output. For systems requiring multiple high-bandwidth display connections, the Intel part has a clear interface advantage. The Intel GPU also has a defined 250 W suggested PSU requirement, which is absent from the NVIDIA entry's specifications.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across every major specification category. The Intel Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip built on TSMC's 6 nm process, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process. The Intel die measures 157 mm² with 7,200 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The NVIDIA die measures 382 mm², which is 2.43 times larger, but its transistor count is listed as unknown.

Memory configurations diverge substantially. The Intel part has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel memory clock runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective data rate, while the NVIDIA memory runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate.

Compute unit counts show a 5:1 ratio in shading units, 5:1 in TMUs, and 1.25:1 in ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, while the Intel part has 8 RT cores and no tensor cores. FP32 throughput is 24.02 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput is 24.02 TFLOPS at 1:1 versus 8.192 TFLOPS at 2:1.

Physical specifications differ completely. The Intel Arc A380E is a single-slot card measuring 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm, with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is an IGP with no listed dimensions, no TDP, and no power connectors. The Intel part uses PCIe 4.0 x8; the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are four DisplayPort 2.0 on the Intel side versus one HDMI on the NVIDIA side. API support shows DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA entry lists N/A for all three APIs.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A380E is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the Alchemist generation in the Arc 3 family. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, specifically the Blackwell IGP generation in the N1x family. The two architectures target different market positions: Intel's Xe-HPG is a discrete GPU architecture for consumer graphics cards, while NVIDIA's Blackwell 2.0 in this implementation is an integrated graphics processor.

Process technology differs by one node step. Intel uses TSMC's 6 nm process, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm process. The die size difference is significant: 157 mm² for Intel versus 382 mm² for NVIDIA. The Intel part packs 7,200 million transistors onto the smaller die, achieving 45.9 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA transistor count is not recorded in the database, so density cannot be calculated.

The execution resource layout reveals the architectural scale difference. Intel allocates 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 8 dedicated ray tracing units. NVIDIA allocates 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, with 40 ray tracing units and 160 tensor cores. The tensor core presence on the NVIDIA part indicates dedicated matrix math hardware that the Intel part lacks entirely.

Clock strategy differs by architecture philosophy. The Intel part runs at a flat 2000 MHz with no boost headroom, suggesting a power-constrained design with a 75 W ceiling. The NVIDIA part spans 741 MHz base to 2346 MHz boost, a 3.17 times range that indicates adaptive clocking for variable workloads. The FP16 execution ratio also differs: Intel achieves 2:1 FP16 to FP32, while NVIDIA achieves 1:1. This means the Intel architecture packs two FP16 operations per FP32 pipe, while the NVIDIA architecture dedicates equal throughput to both precisions.

Memory architecture diverges in both type and scale. Intel pairs a 96-bit GDDR6 interface with 6 GB capacity, while NVIDIA pairs a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface with 128 GB capacity. The Intel part's higher effective memory clock of 15.5 Gbps compensates partially for the narrower bus, but the NVIDIA part's 273.2 GB/s bandwidth remains 1.47 times higher. The NVIDIA IGP's integration into a system with shared memory access explains the large 128 GB allocation, whereas the Intel discrete card carries dedicated 6 GB of VRAM.