AMD Radeon 8060S vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Comparison

AMD Radeon 8060S vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a stark contrast between these two integrated graphics processors. The AMD Radeon 8060S, built on the Strix Halo chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, posts an average benchmark score of 55757 across three recorded tests. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile, based on the Wildcat Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, leaving its average at 0 and its percentile ranking at 50.

The AMD Radeon 8060S delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2162. This result places it at the 87th percentile of all GPUs in the database. For context, the nearest rival in the database is the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, which averages 55698, a delta of only 0.1 percent. The Radeon 8060S also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080, which averages 56083, by a margin of negative 0.6 percent, meaning the 8060S trails that card by less than one percent. Against the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X, the 8060S leads by 1.7 percent, and it beats the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 by 2.8 percent.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon 8060S scores 84626. The Geekbench Vulkan result is 80483. These two scores are close, with the OpenCL test showing a roughly 5 percent advantage over Vulkan. The spread between the two API tests indicates consistent compute performance across different workloads. The 8060S achieves a pixel rate of 185.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 464.0 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is 14.85 TFLOPS, with FP16 delivered at the same 14.85 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has no benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, which means no direct numerical comparison can be made through the head-to-head benchmark table. The database does register its percentile at 50, which sits below the 8060S at 87. The Intel part operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. Its pixel rate is 20.00 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 40.00 GTexel/s. FP32 output is listed at 1,280.0 GFLOPS, while FP16 reaches 2.560 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

The AMD part runs at a base clock of 1295 MHz and boosts to 2900 MHz. These clock speeds are substantially higher than the Intel component, which contributes to the large gap in raw throughput. The 8060S has a 55 W TDP, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile draws 25 W. Both are integrated graphics processors with no separate power connectors and system-shared memory. The bus interface differs, with the AMD using PCIe 5.0 x16 and the Intel using IGP.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a dominant position for the AMD Radeon 8060S. With an average benchmark score of 55757 and a 87th percentile ranking, it sits among discrete-class GPUs like the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and the GeForce RTX 4080. The nearest rival, the RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, is effectively tied at a 0.1 percent delta. The 8060S also holds a 2.8 percent advantage over the RTX 4080, which is a high-end desktop graphics card. This level of performance in an integrated part is remarkable.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile, by contrast, has no benchmark results in the database. Its 50th percentile ranking places it in the middle of all GPUs, but without recorded scores, the practical performance level cannot be quantified. The specification sheet reveals a much smaller part: 256 shading units versus 2560, 16 TMUs versus 160, and 8 ROPs versus 64. The FP32 output is 1,280.0 GFLOPS, which is roughly 11.6 times lower than the 8060S. The pixel rate is 20.00 GPixel/s, about 9.3 times lower than 185.6 GPixel/s.

For users choosing between these two, the data points clearly to the AMD Radeon 8060S for any workload that depends on graphics compute. The 8060S matches or exceeds several dedicated desktop GPUs in the database, which makes it suitable for demanding tasks such as high-resolution gaming, 3D rendering, and GPU-accelerated compute. The Intel part, with its lower TDP of 25 W and smaller silicon footprint, may fit systems where power draw is the primary constraint. Its 3 nm process node from Intel gives it a manufacturing advantage, but the architecture has far fewer execution resources.

The release dates differ by more than a year. The AMD part launched on 2025-01-05, while the Intel part is dated 2026-04-15. The Intel part was not available at the time of the AMD part's release, so the comparison is between a mature, well-tested product and a newer arrival with no recorded performance data.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 8060S compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The 8060S averages 55757, which is 0.1 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, negative 0.6 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080, 1.7 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X, and 2.8 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080.

Q: What benchmark scores are recorded for the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile?

A: The database lists no benchmark entries for the Intel part. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and its percentile ranking is 50.

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 8060S delivers 14.85 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS, which is approximately 11.6 times lower.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two integrated GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 8060S has a TDP of 55 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 8060S boosts to 2900 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile boosts to 2500 MHz.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measured specification. The AMD Radeon 8060S uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm node from Intel. The AMD die size is 308 mm², while the Intel die size is listed as unknown. The AMD part has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz.

Shader resources diverge sharply. The AMD part contains 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 RT cores. The Intel part contains 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 RT cores. This is a 10:1 ratio in shading units, a 10:1 ratio in TMUs, an 8:1 ratio in ROPs, and a 20:1 ratio in RT cores.

Throughput figures follow the same pattern. The AMD pixel rate is 185.6 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s for Intel. The AMD texture rate is 464.0 GTexel/s versus 40.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 14.85 TFLOPS versus 1,280.0 GFLOPS. FP16 is 14.85 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio for AMD, while Intel delivers 2.560 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Power and interface details also differ. The AMD TDP is 55 W, the Intel TDP is 25 W. The AMD bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel interface is IGP. Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

Production status is Active for both. The AMD part lists Polaris Mobile as its predecessor, while the Intel part lists HD Graphics-M. Release dates are 2025-01-05 for AMD and 2026-04-15 for Intel. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 8060S uses the Strix Halo chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation. These are fundamentally different design approaches. AMD's RDNA 3.5 is a mature graphics architecture with a large execution footprint. Intel's Xe3-LPG is a low-power graphics architecture designed for efficiency.

The process nodes reflect distinct manufacturing strategies. AMD uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while Intel uses a 3 nm process at its own foundry. The AMD die measures 308 mm², which is substantial for an integrated GPU. The Intel die size is unknown. Transistor counts are unknown for both parts.

Compute resource allocation shows the core difference. AMD allocates 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 RT cores. Intel allocates 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 RT cores. The RT core disparity is particularly large at 20:1. Neither part lists tensor cores in the database.

FP16 handling differs. The AMD part operates at a 1:1 FP32:FP16 ratio, delivering 14.85 TFLOPS for both. The Intel part operates at a 2:1 ratio, with FP16 at 2.560 TFLOPS and FP32 at 1,280.0 GFLOPS. This indicates AMD's architecture treats FP16 as a first-class compute path, while Intel's implementation appears to be more specialized.

Both architectures support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are classified as Active in production status. The memory subsystem is system-shared for both, with no dedicated VRAM. Bandwidth is system dependent in both cases.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 8060S wins in every measurable performance category in the database. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2162 demonstrates strong graphics rendering capability. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 84626 and Vulkan score of 80483 confirm consistent compute performance across APIs. Its average benchmark score of 55757 places it at the 87th percentile of all GPUs, directly competing with discrete desktop cards like the RTX 4080 and RX 6750 GRE 12 GB.

The 8060S is the clear choice for workloads that stress raw graphics throughput. Its 14.85 TFLOPS FP32, 185.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 464.0 GTexel/s texture rate provide the resources needed for demanding 3D applications. The 40 RT cores give it a hardware ray tracing path that the Intel part lacks in scale. With a 55 W TDP, it draws more power, but it delivers approximately 11.6 times the FP32 performance of the Intel part.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins in power efficiency. Its 25 W TDP is less than half of the AMD part's 55 W. It also uses a smaller 3 nm process node from Intel, which suggests a more modern manufacturing approach. For systems with strict power budgets, such as thin-and-light portables, the Intel part draws significantly less power. Its 300 MHz base clock keeps idle and low-load power consumption low, while the 2500 MHz boost clock provides headroom when needed.

The Intel part has no recorded benchmark scores, so its actual performance cannot be compared numerically. The specification sheet indicates it is designed for efficiency rather than peak throughput. Its 2.560 TFLOPS FP16 output and 20.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are modest figures. The 2 RT cores provide basic ray tracing support, but the 8 ROPs limit fill-rate-bound workloads.

The database shows no head-to-head benchmark entries and no wins recorded for either side. The only comparative data comes from the AMD part's rival list, which places it alongside desktop GPUs. The Intel part has no nearest rivals listed. This asymmetry in available data means the AMD part's performance is well-characterized, while the Intel part remains an unknown quantity in practical terms.

For high-performance tasks, the AMD Radeon 8060S is the only choice with recorded evidence of capability. For low-power integrated graphics, the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile offers a much smaller power envelope, but its performance profile cannot be verified from the database. The AMD part's 87th percentile ranking versus the Intel part's 50th percentile ranking summarizes the positioning: one is a high-end integrated solution, the other is a mid-tier efficiency-focused part.