AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places both the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of zero for each. This indicates that neither part has a measurable performance advantage over the other in the database, as no head-to-head benchmark results are recorded. The AMD Radeon 820M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses Intel's 10 nm process with Xe-LPG architecture. The AMD part operates within a 15 W TDP, whereas the Intel part is rated for 28 W, suggesting the Intel solution draws more power for its operation.

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile offers a substantially larger compute configuration: 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The AMD Radeon 820M counters with 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Despite this disparity in raw unit counts, the database shows no recorded performance delta between the two, meaning the available data cannot confirm that the Intel part's additional hardware translates into higher benchmark scores. The AMD part includes 2 ray tracing cores, while the Intel part lists no ray tracing cores in its specifications. For users prioritizing a specific architecture feature set, the AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a difference that may matter for certain modern graphics workloads.

The AMD Radeon 820M launches later, with a release date in early 2025, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile was released in late 2023. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGPs) with system-shared memory, and both rely on the host system's memory bandwidth, which is listed as system dependent. The AMD part uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface. For a user deciding between these two, the data indicates that the Intel part delivers a much higher theoretical throughput, with FP32 performance of 4.608 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS for the AMD part, but the absence of recorded benchmark wins means the real-world advantage cannot be established from the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation under the Krackan Point 2 chip designation. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel, and is part of the Arc Graphics-M generation based on the Meteor Lake chip. The manufacturing process difference is substantial: the AMD part uses a 4 nm node, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm node, which typically affects transistor density and power efficiency, though the database does not list die sizes or transistor counts for either part.

Clock behavior differs between the two. The AMD Radeon 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. The AMD part therefore runs at a higher maximum clock speed, but the Intel part compensates with a much larger execution resource pool. The Intel part's FP32 throughput is 4.608 TFLOPS, which is 6.4 times the AMD part's 716.8 GFLOPS. The FP16 rates also diverge: the AMD part delivers 716.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Intel part delivers 9.216 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, indicating different compute precision handling.

Pixel and texture throughput follow the same pattern. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile achieves a pixel rate of 72.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 144.0 GTexel/s. The AMD Radeon 820M achieves 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. These figures reflect the Intel part's 32 ROPs versus the AMD part's 4 ROPs, and 64 TMUs versus 8 TMUs. The AMD part includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the Intel part's listed specifications. API support also differs: the AMD part lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel part lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both parts share the OpenGL and Vulkan versions, but the DirectX feature level differs.

Power and interface specifications separate the two further. The AMD Radeon 820M is rated at 15 W TDP with no power connectors, and uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile is rated at 28 W TDP, with no power connector information listed, and uses a Ring Bus interface. The AMD part's predecessor is the Navi II IGP, while the Intel part's predecessor is the HD Graphics-M. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The database records zero head-to-head benchmark wins for either part, so the recorded data does not assign victory in any specific workload category. However, the specification sheet suggests distinct areas of theoretical strength. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile shows a clear advantage in raw compute throughput: its FP32 performance of 4.608 TFLOPS is 6.4 times the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. For workloads that scale with shading units and texture units, such as high-resolution texture processing or general-purpose compute, the Intel part's 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs provide a much larger execution pipeline. The texture rate of 144.0 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s reinforces this direction.

The AMD Radeon 820M holds advantages in architectural modernity and specific feature support. Its RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process is newer than Intel's Xe-LPG on a 10 nm process, and the AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features that the Intel part's DirectX 12 (12_1) does not list. The AMD part also includes 2 ray tracing cores, a hardware feature absent from the Intel part's specification. For software that explicitly requires DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the AMD part may be the only one of the two that qualifies. The AMD part also operates at a lower 15 W TDP, compared to the Intel part's 28 W, which could be relevant in thermally constrained portable devices.

The boost clock difference favors the AMD part, with 2800 MHz versus the Intel part's 2250 MHz. In lightly threaded or latency-sensitive workloads that do not fully utilize the Intel part's wider SIMD arrays, the AMD part's higher clock could provide an advantage. The ROP count difference also matters for fill-rate-bound scenarios: the Intel part's 32 ROPs deliver 72.00 GPixel/s, which is 6.4 times the AMD part's 11.20 GPixel/s. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores to confirm these spec-based expectations, so the database treats them as equal in measured performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has an FP32 throughput of 4.608 TFLOPS, which is 6.4 times the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The AMD Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which GPU includes ray tracing hardware?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile does not list ray tracing cores in its specifications.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W, and the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has 1024 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a boost clock of 2800 MHz, which is higher than the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile's boost clock of 2250 MHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark results are recorded in the database for the AMD Radeon 820M versus the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile. The wins counter for each part is zero, and the average benchmark score for both is zero. The percentile ranking for both is the 50th percentile among all GPUs. This means the database cannot confirm a performance winner between the two based on measured results.

The largest theoretical gaps are in the compute and rasterization domains. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile's FP32 figure of 4.608 TFLOPS is 6.4 times the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. The pixel rate follows the same multiplier: 72.00 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s, also 6.4 times. The texture rate of 144.0 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s is 6.4 times as well. These consistent ratios stem from the Intel part's hardware configuration: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the AMD part's 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs.

The AMD Radeon 820M's advantages are in clock speed and feature set. Its boost clock of 2800 MHz exceeds the Intel part's 2250 MHz by 550 MHz. The AMD part's 2 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support are not present in the Intel part's listed specifications, which show DirectX 12 (12_1) and no ray tracing cores. The AMD part also uses a newer 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

Release timing separates the parts: the AMD Radeon 820M was released in early 2025, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile was released in late 2023. Both are integrated GPUs with system-shared memory, and both list memory bandwidth as system dependent. The bus interfaces differ, with the AMD part using PCIe 4.0 x8 and the Intel part using Ring Bus. The database records no benchmark results, so the spec-level deltas remain theoretical rather than measured outcomes.