AMD Radeon 780M vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon 780M and Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process with the Phoenix chip, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on Intel's 3 nm process with the Wildcat Lake chip. The AMD part integrates 12 ray tracing cores and 768 shading units, whereas the Intel part has 2 ray tracing cores and 256 shading units.

Q: How do the benchmark scores compare between these two integrated GPUs?

A: The database contains three benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon 780M: 480 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 18,602 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 33,683 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 17,588. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile currently has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is at the 50th percentile.

Q: What are the clock speed specifications for each chip?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2,900 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2,500 MHz.

Q: How do the thermal design power figures differ?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W. Both are integrated graphics processors with no power connectors required.

Q: What is the pixel and texture throughput for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M delivers 92.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 139.2 GTexel/s texture rate. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 20.00 GPixel/s and 40.00 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two integrated GPUs into distinct categories based on hardware resources and measured performance. The AMD Radeon 780M is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance reaches 8.909 TFLOPS, which is approximately seven times the 1,280.0 GFLOPS of the Intel part. This advantage appears across every major pipeline stage: the AMD chip has triple the shading units (768 versus 256), triple the texture mapping units (48 versus 16), and quadruple the render output units (32 versus 8). Benchmark results confirm this lead, with the 780M scoring 33,683 in Geekbench Vulkan, a figure that reflects strong driver and hardware synergy for compute-heavy workloads.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins in areas tied to efficiency and process technology. It is built on Intel's 3 nm process node, one step ahead of the TSMC 4 nm node used for the AMD Phoenix chip. The Intel part also carries a higher TDP envelope at 25 W versus 15 W, which suggests the platform can allocate more sustained power headroom. For systems where the GPU shares power with the CPU, the Intel part's higher power allowance may enable more consistent clock behavior under load, though the database does not yet include benchmark scores to quantify this.

The Intel part also wins on FP16 throughput efficiency. Its FP16 rating is 2.560 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, meaning the hardware executes two FP16 operations per FP32 operation. The AMD part lists FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, so its FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput without any rate advantage. For workloads that can exploit packed FP16 math, the Intel architecture's 2:1 ratio provides a relative efficiency boost per shading unit, even though the absolute throughput remains lower.

The AMD Radeon 780M wins decisively in ray tracing capability. It integrates 12 ray tracing cores versus only 2 in the Intel design. This sixfold difference in RT core count positions the AMD chip for substantially heavier ray-traced workloads, provided the rest of the GPU can sustain the shading demand. The Intel part, with fewer RT cores and fewer shading units, is better suited for lighter integrated graphics scenarios where ray tracing is a secondary feature rather than a primary workload.

In the absence of recorded benchmarks for the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile, the AMD part currently holds every measured performance win. The database shows zero wins for the Intel part and zero head-to-head benchmark entries.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon 780M is built on RDNA 3.0, the third iteration of AMD's Radeon DNA architecture, and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation with the Phoenix chip. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses Xe3-LPG, the low-power variant of Intel's third-generation Xe graphics architecture, and is part of the Arc Graphics-M generation with the Wildcat Lake chip.

Process technology differs significantly. AMD uses TSMC's 4 nm process with a die size of 178 mm² and 25,390 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. Intel uses its own 3 nm process, though the database lists the transistor count and die size as unknown. The smaller process node for Intel suggests potential improvements in power efficiency per transistor, but without die dimensions, a direct density comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

The compute architecture diverges in scale. AMD configures the 780M with 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. Intel configures the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile with 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part has exactly three times the shading units and TMUs, and four times the ROPs. This scale difference directly explains the throughput gaps in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute.

Ray tracing hardware differs by a factor of six: 12 RT cores on the AMD chip versus 2 RT cores on the Intel chip. Neither GPU includes dedicated tensor cores, so AI acceleration relies on general-purpose shading hardware.

Clock behavior also reflects architectural priorities. The AMD part has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2,900 MHz, a 2,100 MHz boost range. The Intel part starts lower at 300 MHz base and boosts to 2,500 MHz, a 2,200 MHz range. The higher AMD boost clock contributes to its peak throughput figures, while the Intel base clock is notably conservative, possibly to preserve power in portable devices.

Memory architecture is identical in configuration: both use system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. Neither GPU has dedicated VRAM, which means performance is influenced by the host system's memory subsystem.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs, based only on the recorded data:

• Process node: AMD uses 4 nm (TSMC), Intel uses 3 nm (Intel foundry).
• Chip: Phoenix for AMD, Wildcat Lake for Intel.
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 for AMD, Xe3-LPG for Intel.
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Phoenix) for AMD, Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) for Intel.
• Transistor count: 25,390 million for AMD, unknown for Intel.
• Die size: 178 mm² for AMD, unknown for Intel.
• Transistor density: 142.6M per mm² for AMD, null for Intel.
• Base clock: 800 MHz for AMD, 300 MHz for Intel.
• Boost clock: 2,900 MHz for AMD, 2,500 MHz for Intel.
• Shading units: 768 for AMD, 256 for Intel.
• Texture mapping units: 48 for AMD, 16 for Intel.
• Render output units: 32 for AMD, 8 for Intel.
• Ray tracing cores: 12 for AMD, 2 for Intel.
• Pixel rate: 92.80 GPixel/s for AMD, 20.00 GPixel/s for Intel.
• Texture rate: 139.2 GTexel/s for AMD, 40.00 GTexel/s for Intel.
• FP32 throughput: 8.909 TFLOPS for AMD, 1,280.0 GFLOPS for Intel.
• FP16 throughput: 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1) for AMD, 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel.
• TDP: 15 W for AMD, 25 W for Intel.
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD, IGP for Intel.
• Display outputs: Motherboard Dependent for AMD, Portable Device Dependent for Intel.
• Release date: 2024-01-30 for AMD, 2026-04-15 for Intel.
• Predecessor: Navi II IGP for AMD, HD Graphics-M for Intel.
• Successor: Navi III IGP for AMD, null for Intel.
• Average benchmark score: 17,588 for AMD, 0 for Intel.
• Percentile vs. all GPUs: 61st for AMD, 50th for Intel.

Both GPUs share the following: system shared memory, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and active production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Radeon 780M and the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile. The Intel part has an empty benchmark array, and its average score is recorded as 0. Therefore, all performance comparisons must draw from the AMD part's individual benchmark scores and the hardware specifications of both chips.

The AMD Radeon 780M's Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,683 stands as its strongest recorded result. This score places the GPU in a range where it outperforms dedicated discrete GPUs from several generations ago. For context, the nearest rivals around the 780M's average score of 17,588 include the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 7790 at 17,666 (0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17,509 (0.5% behind). These delta values show that the 780M's average performance sits within a narrow band of roughly 1% among these four rivals.

The Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,602 for the AMD part is consistent with its average, while the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480 is a much lower absolute number, reflecting the different workload characteristics of that test. The 780M's FP32 throughput of 8.909 TFLOPS and its 12 RT cores position it well above the Intel part's 1,280.0 GFLOPS and 2 RT cores for any compute or ray-traced workload.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has no recorded scores to compare directly. Its FP16 to FP32 ratio of 2:1 is the only performance-related advantage evident from the specification data, as the AMD part operates at a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part's lower pixel rate (20.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (40.00 GTexel/s) relative to the AMD part (92.80 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s) indicate that the Intel GPU would trail significantly in rasterization-bound tasks, assuming those throughput figures translate proportionally to real-world performance.

The 25 W TDP of the Intel part versus 15 W for the AMD part suggests the Intel design may have a different power delivery strategy, but without benchmark data, the performance impact of this higher power envelope cannot be quantified. The AMD part's higher clock range (800 MHz to 2,900 MHz) and larger shading unit count produce a theoretical FP32 advantage of approximately 6.96 times, which is the most decisive specification gap between the two chips.