AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc 140T Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows two integrated graphics parts with completely different design goals. The AMD Radeon 820M is a low-power IGP built around the Krackan Point 2 chip, using the RDNA 3.5 architecture, and it targets efficient operation within a 15 W TDP envelope. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile, by contrast, is a much larger implementation on the Arrow Lake-H chip, using the Xe-LPG+ architecture, with a 35 W TDP. The benchmark database currently lists no head-to-head benchmark entries for this pair, and the win counts are zero for both sides. However, the specification data alone provides a clear basis for separating their intended usage scenarios.

The Intel Arc 140T Mobile wins decisively on raw throughput metrics. Its pixel rate is recorded at 75.20 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s for the AMD part, a margin that indicates a substantial advantage in fill-rate-bound work. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 150.4 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s. These figures point to the Intel part being the choice for any workload that stresses pixel shading, texture filtering, or rasterization throughput. The shading unit count of 1024 versus 128, the TMU count of 64 versus 8, and the ROP count of 32 versus 4 all reinforce this direction. The Arc 140T Mobile also carries 8 ray tracing cores versus 2 on the Radeon, so any ray-traced content, even light effects in integrated graphics, will have more hardware available on the Intel side.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins on power efficiency and clock behavior. Its base clock is 400 MHz and boost is 2800 MHz, while the Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 2350 MHz boost. The AMD GPU reaches a higher boost frequency despite operating at less than half the TDP (15 W versus 35 W). For thin-and-light portable devices where sustained load and thermal limits are the binding constraint, the Radeon 820M is positioned to maintain performance in a tighter power budget. The 4 nm process node from TSMC, versus the 5 nm node for the Intel part, also suggests a density advantage, though the database lists transistor counts and die sizes as unknown for both.

In practical terms, the Intel Arc 140T Mobile is the part to select when the system has the power and cooling headroom to feed a 35 W GPU. The AMD Radeon 820M is the part for designs where 15 W is the ceiling and the priority is keeping the whole platform within a modest power allocation. The percentile versus all GPUs is recorded as 50 for both parts, which indicates the database places them at the same overall tier, but the distribution of resources within that tier is very different.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and are fabricated on different process nodes. The AMD Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5, belongs to the Navi III IGP generation (Strix Point Mobile), and is built on a 4 nm TSMC process. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile uses Xe-LPG+, belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation (Arrow Lake), and is built on a 5 nm TSMC process. Both are integrated graphics parts with system-shared memory, and both list the bus interface as PCIe 4.0 x8 on the AMD side versus IGP on the Intel side, which reflects that the Intel part is directly integrated into the Arrow Lake-H package.

The compute resource disparity is the defining architectural difference. The AMD part has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The Intel part has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is an 8x difference in shading units and TMUs, and an 8x difference in ROPs. These are not incremental changes; they represent a fundamentally larger GPU on the Intel side. The ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: 2 RT cores on AMD versus 8 on Intel, a 4x difference.

The FP32 throughput figures confirm the scale gap. The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS. The Intel part is approximately 6.7x higher in single-precision floating-point throughput. FP16 performance shows an interesting divergence in ratio. The AMD part records FP16 at 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not gain any throughput by using half-precision. The Intel part records FP16 at 9.626 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles its throughput when operating on FP16 data. This is a meaningful architectural difference for workloads that can use half-precision, such as certain machine learning inference paths or graphics effects that operate in FP16.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD part has a 400 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost. The Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 2350 MHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the Intel part achieves far higher throughput because of its much wider execution resources. The AMD part compensates for its narrower design with a higher boost clock, which helps in short burst workloads.

Both parts share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are listed as Active production status. The AMD part has a release date of 2025-02-28, and the Intel part has a release date of 2025-01-12, so the Intel part precedes the AMD part by about six weeks in the database records. The predecessor entries differ: the AMD part lists Navi II IGP as its predecessor, while the Intel part lists HD Graphics-M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon 820M versus the Intel Arc 140T Mobile. The winsA and winsB counters are both zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. This means there is no direct performance comparison data available from our measurements. The analysis in this section therefore relies entirely on the specification-derived throughput figures and the recorded clock behavior.

The largest single-specification margin is in pixel rate. The Intel part achieves 75.20 GPixel/s, which is 64.00 GPixel/s higher than the AMD part's 11.20 GPixel/s. In relative terms, the Intel part delivers roughly 6.7x the pixel fill rate. This affects any workload that writes many fragments, such as high-resolution UI compositing, simple 3D scenes with large triangle counts, or post-processing passes that operate on full-screen quads.

Texture rate shows a similar 6.7x margin. The Intel part records 150.4 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s on the AMD part. Texture-heavy workloads, including many game scenes where materials and terrain are sampled frequently, will see a much larger advantage on the Intel part. The TMU count of 64 versus 8 directly drives this difference.

FP32 throughput also favors Intel by approximately 6.7x (4.813 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS). This is the relevant metric for general shader compute, and it indicates that the Intel part has a much higher ceiling for compute-bound graphics or general-purpose GPU workloads. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided in Intel's favor: 9.626 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio versus 716.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. For FP16 workloads, the Intel part offers roughly 13.4x the throughput.

The only metrics where the AMD part records a higher value are the clock speeds. The AMD boost clock of 2800 MHz exceeds the Intel boost of 2350 MHz by 450 MHz. The AMD base clock of 400 MHz exceeds the Intel base of 300 MHz by 100 MHz. Higher clocks can help in latency-sensitive or lightly-threaded scenarios where the GPU does not saturate its execution resources, but the database does not provide a benchmark that isolates this effect.

The TDP difference is also recorded: 15 W for AMD versus 35 W for Intel. This is not a performance score, but it is a constraint that affects sustained performance. A 35 W GPU in a chassis designed for a 15 W GPU will likely thermally throttle sooner, so the raw throughput advantage of the Intel part may not translate fully in a thin laptop.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile has 1024 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units. The Intel part has 8x the shading unit count.

Q: How do the FP32 throughput figures compare?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part is about 6.7x higher in single-precision throughput.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two parts?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W, and the Intel Arc 140T Mobile has a TDP of 35 W. The Intel part consumes more than twice the power budget.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 as their supported APIs.

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile has a boost clock of 2350 MHz. The AMD part runs 450 MHz higher at boost.

Q: What is the FP16 throughput ratio for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M records FP16 at 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning no half-precision speedup. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile records FP16 at 9.626 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles throughput in half-precision workloads.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct usage profiles. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile is the higher-performance part across every recorded throughput metric: pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, FP16, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores. Systems that can supply 35 W to the GPU and have adequate cooling should select the Intel part for any graphics or compute workload that benefits from raw throughput.

The AMD Radeon 820M is the part for power-constrained designs. Its 15 W TDP is less than half of the Intel part's 35 W, and it still reaches a higher boost clock (2800 MHz versus 2350 MHz). For ultra-portable devices where battery life and thermal headroom are the primary design constraints, the AMD part offers a more appropriate power envelope. Its 4 nm process node also suggests a more modern fabrication approach, though the database does not include transistor counts or die sizes to quantify this.

The percentile ranking of 50 for both parts indicates that the database places them at the same overall tier, but the specification sheet makes it clear that they achieve that tier through very different means. The Intel part is a wide, high-throughput GPU that needs power. The AMD part is a narrow, high-clock GPU that sips power. Neither part has a recorded benchmark score in the database, so the actual performance delta remains unmeasured. Based on the recorded specifications alone, the Intel Arc 140T Mobile is the stronger choice for graphics-intensive work, and the AMD Radeon 820M is the stronger choice for efficiency-focused mobile platforms.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across several recorded specification fields. The AMD Radeon 820M uses the Krackan Point 2 chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile uses the Arrow Lake-H chip with Xe-LPG+ architecture. The process nodes differ: 4 nm for AMD, 5 nm for Intel, both from TSMC. The AMD part has a 400 MHz base clock and 2800 MHz boost, while the Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 2350 MHz boost.

The compute resources differ substantially. The AMD part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 RT cores. The Intel part has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. Pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s for AMD versus 75.20 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 22.40 GTexel/s versus 150.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 716.8 GFLOPS versus 4.813 TFLOPS. FP16 is 716.8 GFLOPS at 1:1 ratio versus 9.626 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio.

TDP differs: 15 W for AMD, 35 W for Intel. The bus interface is listed as PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD and IGP for Intel. Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The release dates differ: 2025-02-28 for AMD, 2025-01-12 for Intel. The predecessor entries differ: Navi II IGP for AMD, HD Graphics-M for Intel. Both share the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are listed as Active production status with no launch MSRP recorded.