AMD Radeon 680M vs Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the AMD Radeon 680M has three benchmark results in the database, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores at all. This asymmetry defines the entire head-to-head analysis.

For the AMD Radeon 680M, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test returns a score of 378. In Geekbench OpenCL, the iGPU scores 23,468 points. The Vulkan test under Geekbench yields a score of 21,965. These three results produce an average benchmark score of 15,270 for the AMD part.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, by contrast, shows an average benchmark score of 0 and an empty benchmark list. There are no head-to-head benchmark entries in the database, and the win counters for both items are set to zero. Consequently, the data cannot show a single direct comparison where one part outperforms the other in a recorded test.

What the database does offer is context for the AMD Radeon 680M through its nearest rivals. The AMD iGPU sits at the 57th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its average score of 15,270 places it within a narrow band of discrete graphics cards. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 averages 15,283, which is a 0.1% delta above the AMD part. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 averages 15,290, also 0.1% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM averages 15,199, putting the AMD part 0.5% ahead of that card. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 averages 15,171, with the 680M leading by 0.7%.

These deltas are remarkably tight. The entire spread between the four rival GPUs spans only 119 points on average score, from 15,171 to 15,290. The AMD Radeon 680M sits almost exactly in the middle of this cluster. This indicates that, based on the database averages, the integrated graphics solution from AMD performs on par with several older and mid-range discrete desktop graphics cards.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile holds the 50th percentile among all GPUs, but with no benchmark scores recorded, this percentile cannot be tied to any measured performance data. The database shows no rival list for the Intel part either. The practical result is that the Intel iGPU has no measurable benchmark footprint in the current dataset.

Where Each One Wins

Because the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has no recorded benchmarks, the use-case analysis must rely entirely on the AMD Radeon 680M’s measured results and the architectural data for both parts.

The AMD Radeon 680M wins in every category where a recorded score exists. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378, Geekbench OpenCL score of 23,468, and Geekbench Vulkan score of 21,965 all stand as the only quantitative performance data in this comparison. The 57th percentile ranking among all GPUs further confirms that the AMD part has a measurable performance position in the database.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, with zero recorded scores, cannot claim any benchmark win in this dataset. However, the architectural specifications suggest where the Intel part might hold advantages in future testing. The Intel chip uses a 3 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry, compared to the 6 nm TSMC node for the AMD part. The Intel iGPU has a higher boost clock at 2300 MHz versus 2200 MHz for the AMD part. The base clock is dramatically different: 300 MHz for Intel versus 2000 MHz for AMD, indicating a much wider dynamic clock range for the Intel solution.

The Intel part also has a significantly lower TDP at 25 W, exactly half of the AMD Radeon 680M’s 50 W rating. This suggests the Intel iGPU could be better suited for power-constrained thin-and-light laptops, while the AMD part may have more thermal headroom for sustained performance. The database does not record any power efficiency benchmarks, so this remains an inference from the TDP figures.

The AMD Radeon 680M wins on raw compute resources. It has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The AMD part also delivers higher theoretical pixel rate at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s, higher texture rate at 105.6 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s, and higher FP32 throughput at 3.379 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has an average benchmark score of 15,270. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has an average benchmark score of 0, as no benchmarks are recorded in the database.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 680M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD part is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 and 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060. It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600.

Q: What are the individual benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon 680M?

A: The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 378. The Geekbench OpenCL score is 23,468. The Geekbench Vulkan score is 21,965.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile have any benchmark results?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the Intel part, and its average benchmark score is 0.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for both GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has a TDP of 50 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M uses a 6 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process from Intel.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

The AMD Radeon 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip under the RDNA 2.0 architecture, part of the Navi II IGP generation. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Panther Lake chip under the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation.

The process node differs: AMD uses 6 nm from TSMC, while Intel uses 3 nm from Intel. The AMD chip contains 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm². The Intel chip has unknown transistor count, die size, and density.

Clock speeds show a notable difference. The AMD part has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

The compute unit counts diverge significantly. AMD has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Intel has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores.

Theoretical throughput numbers favor AMD in every category: pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s, texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s, FP32 of 3.379 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS, and FP16 of 6.758 TFLOPS versus 4.710 TFLOPS.

The TDP is 50 W for AMD and 25 W for Intel. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD and simply IGP for Intel. Both are IGP slot width, have no power connectors, and have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Release dates differ substantially: the AMD Radeon 680M launched on 2023-01-02, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is dated 2026-01-26. The AMD part has a predecessor (Vega II IGP) and a successor (Navi III IGP), while the Intel part has neither listed. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two integrated GPUs is substantial, reflecting different design philosophies and manufacturing approaches.

The AMD Radeon 680M employs RDNA 2.0 architecture, a mature design that AMD has used across multiple product generations. The chip is named Rembrandt+, and it belongs to the Navi II IGP generation. This architecture uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, with 13,100 million transistors packed into a 208 mm² die.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture, a newer design that Intel labels under the Arc Graphics-M generation. The chip is named Panther Lake, and it uses a 3 nm process from Intel’s own foundry. The database records no transistor count, die size, or density for this part.

The core configurations reflect these architectural choices. AMD’s RDNA 2.0 implementation uses 768 shading units organized with 48 TMUs and 32 ROPs. The Intel Xe3-LPG implementation uses 512 shading units with 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Both are roughly proportional in their internal ratios, but AMD has a 50% advantage in shading units and TMUs, and a 100% advantage in ROPs.

Ray tracing cores show a stark difference: 12 for AMD versus 4 for Intel. This suggests the AMD architecture dedicates more silicon to ray tracing workloads, though no ray tracing benchmarks are recorded in the database to quantify the impact.

The clock behavior indicates different power management strategies. AMD runs a narrow range from 2000 MHz base to 2200 MHz boost, suggesting a design that stays near its maximum frequency under load. Intel runs a wide range from 300 MHz base to 2300 MHz boost, indicating aggressive power gating at idle and a boost ceiling slightly higher than AMD’s.

The FP32 and FP16 ratios reveal similar compute structures. Both architectures deliver FP16 at exactly 2:1 ratio relative to FP32: AMD at 6.758 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS, Intel at 4.710 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS. This indicates both designs use the same shader-based approach to half-precision math rather than dedicated tensor cores.

The TDP difference of 50 W for AMD versus 25 W for Intel is the most consequential architectural outcome. Intel achieves a higher boost clock on half the power budget, though with fewer compute units. The AMD part delivers higher absolute throughput but consumes double the power. The database records no efficiency metrics, so the performance-per-watt relationship cannot be quantified from measured data.

Both GPUs share the same API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning the system RAM configuration determines memory performance. Both are classified as IGP with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The production status for both is Active, though the AMD part has a release date nearly three years earlier than the Intel part. The AMD architecture has clear generational lineage with predecessor and successor listed, while the Intel part stands without recorded lineage in the database.