AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile shows no benchmark wins for either part, as the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. With zero wins on each side, the use-case split must be derived from the architectural and specification differences rather than from measured performance results. The AMD Radeon 820M presents a higher boost clock of 2800 MHz against the Intel part's 2300 MHz, which suggests a raw execution rate advantage in workloads that scale with clock frequency. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile counters with a higher thermal envelope of 25 W, while the AMD part operates at 15 W, indicating that the Intel design can sustain more power draw for potentially longer boost periods in sustained loads.

The AMD side uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture from the Navi III IGP generation, while the Intel side relies on Xe3-LPG from the Arc Graphics-M generation. Both parts are integrated graphics processors with system-shared memory, so neither has a dedicated memory pool to differentiate use cases. The AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores, whereas the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile includes 1 ray tracing core, giving the AMD part a structural edge for ray-traced rendering workloads even without benchmark data to quantify it. The Intel part supports FP16 at 1,177.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD part delivers 716.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, which points to an Intel advantage in half-precision compute tasks such as certain AI inference or shader-heavy effects.

For pixel and texture throughput, the AMD Radeon 820M records 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s, both above the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile's 9.200 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s. The AMD part also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel part lists its bus interface simply as IGP. These figures suggest the AMD Radeon 820M is positioned for higher fill-rate-bound work, while the Intel part's higher TDP and FP16 throughput point toward compute-heavy or efficiency-oriented configurations in portable devices.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation, using a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture from the Arc Graphics-M generation, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The process node difference, 4 nm versus 3 nm, gives the Intel part a smaller transistor geometry, though both parts report unknown transistor counts and die sizes, so the density impact cannot be quantified from the data.

Both GPUs share identical core counts for shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units: 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The ray tracing core counts differ, with the AMD Radeon 820M carrying 2 RT cores and the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile carrying 1. Neither part lists tensor cores, so AI acceleration features beyond the shader array remain unspecified. The AMD part lists its generation as Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) with a chip name of Krackan Point 2, while the Intel part lists its chip as Wildcat Lake.

Clock behavior splits the two designs. The AMD Radeon 820M runs a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile runs a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The AMD part has a 500 MHz higher boost ceiling, which directly contributes to its higher pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s and its higher texture rate of 22.40 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s. FP32 compute also favors the AMD part at 716.8 GFLOPS against 588.8 GFLOPS, a 128 GFLOPS gap. FP16 reverses the order: the Intel part delivers 1,177.6 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD part delivers 716.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning the Intel architecture can process two FP16 operations per FP32 operation, whereas AMD processes them at parity.

Power delivery differs as well. The AMD Radeon 820M has a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a 25 W TDP. Both are IGPs with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The AMD part uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel part lists its bus interface simply as IGP. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity holds. The AMD part released on 2025-02-28, and the Intel part released on 2026-04-15, a difference of roughly 14 months. The AMD part's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M. Both are listed as Active production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table for the AMD Radeon 820M versus the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is empty, so no measured performance deltas exist in the database. The wins counters show 0 for both parts. Without recorded scores, the analysis relies on the specification-derived rates. The AMD Radeon 820M leads in pixel rate at 11.20 GPixel/s, which is 1.217 times the Intel part's 9.200 GPixel/s, an advantage of roughly 22%. Texture rate follows the same pattern: the AMD part's 22.40 GTexel/s is 1.217 times the Intel part's 18.40 GTexel/s, again about 22% higher. FP32 compute shows a narrower lead: 716.8 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS, a difference of 128 GFLOPS, which is 21.7% above the Intel figure.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile takes the FP16 category. Its 1,177.6 GFLOPS is 64.3% higher than the AMD part's 716.8 GFLOPS. This is the only rate category where the Intel part leads. The FP16 ratio difference explains the gap: Intel uses a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while AMD uses a 1:1 ratio, so Intel's FP16 throughput is double its FP32 rate, while AMD's FP16 rate equals its FP32 rate. Boost clock favors AMD by 500 MHz, from 2300 MHz to 2800 MHz, which aligns with the fill-rate and FP32 leads. The base clock also favors AMD at 400 MHz versus 300 MHz.

Ray tracing hardware differs: the AMD part has 2 RT cores, the Intel part has 1 RT core. No ray tracing benchmark scores exist in the data, so the practical impact remains unmeasured. Power draw favors the AMD part in efficiency terms, since it achieves higher pixel and texture rates at a 15 W TDP versus the Intel part's 25 W TDP. The AMD part delivers 11.20 GPixel/s at 15 W, while the Intel part delivers 9.200 GPixel/s at 25 W. The database does not include efficiency ratios, but the raw numbers show the AMD part producing more fill rate per watt.

Both parts share the same memory configuration: system shared with system-dependent bandwidth. Neither has a dedicated memory bus width or bandwidth figure, so memory-bound performance cannot be compared. Both support identical API sets: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The empty benchmark table means the percentile ranking for both parts sits at 50, and the average benchmark score for both is 0, indicating no sample data has been recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across several specification fields. The process node: AMD uses 4 nm from TSMC, Intel uses 3 nm from Intel. The base clock differs by 100 MHz, with the AMD Radeon 820M at 400 MHz and the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile at 300 MHz. The boost clock differs by 500 MHz, with AMD at 2800 MHz and Intel at 2300 MHz. Pixel rate differs by 2.000 GPixel/s, with AMD at 11.20 GPixel/s and Intel at 9.200 GPixel/s. Texture rate differs by 4.00 GTexel/s, with AMD at 22.40 GTexel/s and Intel at 18.40 GTexel/s. FP32 compute differs by 128.0 GFLOPS, with AMD at 716.8 GFLOPS and Intel at 588.8 GFLOPS. FP16 compute differs by 460.8 GFLOPS, with Intel at 1,177.6 GFLOPS and AMD at 716.8 GFLOPS, and the FP16 ratio differs: AMD at 1:1, Intel at 2:1.

Ray tracing cores differ by 1, with AMD at 2 and Intel at 1. The TDP differs by 10 W, with AMD at 15 W and Intel at 25 W. The bus interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, Intel lists IGP. The chip differs: AMD uses Krackan Point 2, Intel uses Wildcat Lake. The architecture differs: AMD uses RDNA 3.5, Intel uses Xe3-LPG. The generation differs: AMD uses Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile), Intel uses Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake). The release dates differ, with AMD on 2025-02-28 and Intel on 2026-04-15. The predecessors differ: AMD lists Navi II IGP, Intel lists HD Graphics-M. Shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory configuration, slot width, power connectors, display outputs, and API support are identical across both parts. Neither part has a launch MSRP listed in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a boost clock of 2300 MHz, a 500 MHz difference in favor of AMD.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same core counts?

A: Yes, both have 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units. They differ in ray tracing cores: the AMD Radeon 820M has 2 RT cores, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 1 RT core.

Q: Which GPU supports higher FP16 throughput?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile supports 1,177.6 GFLOPS at a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the AMD Radeon 820M supports 716.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. Intel leads FP16 throughput by 460.8 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the power draw figures for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W, and the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W. Both are integrated graphics processors with no power connectors.

Q: Are the API features the same on both GPUs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both also use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What process nodes are used by each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, and the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process from Intel.