AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile as two integrated graphics solutions with distinct performance profiles. The Intel part holds a decisive advantage in raw compute throughput, offering 1,280.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance against the AMD part's 716.8 GFLOPS. This translates to roughly 78% higher peak floating-point output, a margin that shows up in pixel fillrate and texture throughput as well. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 20.00 GPixel/s and 40.00 GTexel/s, while the AMD Radeon 820M manages 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, which indicates they occupy similar market positioning despite the performance gap.

For buyers selecting between these two, the choice comes down to what the integrated graphics will handle. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is the stronger option for workloads that scale with shading units, texture operations, and raw compute, such as modern game rendering at lower settings or GPU-accelerated content creation. The AMD Radeon 820M, with its lower power envelope and higher boost clock, suits scenarios where efficiency and thermal headroom matter more than peak output. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rival data in the database, so the analysis relies on architectural specifications and clock behavior rather than measured application performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins clearly in any task that leverages its doubled resource counts. It carries 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units, exactly double the AMD part's 128 shaders, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. This structural advantage appears directly in the fillrate numbers: the Intel part's 20.00 GPixel/s is almost double the AMD part's 11.20 GPixel/s, and its 40.00 GTexel/s likewise doubles the AMD's 22.40 GTexel/s. For pixel-heavy workloads such as high-resolution desktop compositing or game scenes with heavy overdraw, the Intel part has a clear edge.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins on clock speed and power efficiency. Its boost clock reaches 2800 MHz, 300 MHz higher than the Intel part's 2500 MHz boost. This higher clock partially compensates for the smaller shader count, though not enough to close the gap in raw throughput. The AMD part also draws only 15 W against the Intel part's 25 W. In thin-and-light laptops where the thermal budget is shared with the CPU, the AMD part leaves more headroom for sustained CPU performance. The AMD part also uses a 4 nm TSMC process, which typically offers better transistor density and power characteristics than Intel's 3 nm node, though the database does not include transistor counts or die sizes to confirm this.

For FP16 workloads, the Intel part has a separate advantage. It delivers 2.560 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, which is double its FP32 output, indicating a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part delivers 716.8 GFLOPS of FP16, which matches its FP32 output at a 1:1 ratio. Applications that use half-precision math, such as certain AI inference or graphics post-processing effects, will run faster on the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies and process nodes. The AMD Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm TSMC process, and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation with the Krackan Point 2 chip. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on Intel's own 3 nm process, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation with the Wildcat Lake chip. Both are integrated graphics solutions with no separate memory, relying on system shared memory for all data transfer.

The shader organization differs significantly. The AMD part uses 128 shading units with 8 TMUs and 4 ROPs, a configuration typical of entry-level RDNA parts. The Intel part uses 256 shading units with 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs, effectively doubling the execution resources across the board. Both parts include 2 ray tracing cores, so hardware-accelerated ray tracing is available on both, though the Intel part has more shading resources to feed those RT cores.

Memory architecture is identical in description: both use system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. There is no dedicated VRAM, no separate memory bus, and no memory clock listed for either. The bus interface differs, with the AMD part using PCIe 4.0 x8 and the Intel part listed simply as "IGP," which suggests a direct connection to the CPU's memory controller rather than a PCIe link.

Clock behavior shows a notable split. The AMD Radeon 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost of 2800 MHz, a 2400 MHz range that suggests aggressive power management. The Intel part has a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2500 MHz, a 2200 MHz range. The AMD part's higher boost clock indicates it can spike to higher frequencies when thermals and power allow, while the Intel part relies more on its wider execution resources.

API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means neither part has a feature-set advantage in modern game APIs. Both are currently in active production status, with the AMD part released on 2025-02-28 and the Intel part on 2026-04-15. The AMD part's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, while the Intel part succeeds HD Graphics-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 78% higher than the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part also doubles the AMD part in pixel rate (20.00 GPixel/s vs 11.20 GPixel/s) and texture rate (40.00 GTexel/s vs 22.40 GTexel/s).

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 2500 MHz. The AMD part runs 300 MHz higher at boost, but its smaller shader count means the clock advantage does not translate into higher throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Yes, both include 2 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon 820M and Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing requirements, and both list Vulkan 1.4 support.

Q: What is the power consumption of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has a 25 W TDP. The AMD part draws 40% less power, which can matter in thin laptops with limited cooling.

Q: Which GPU is better for FP16 workloads?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile, with 2.560 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio relative to its FP32 output. The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it has no half-precision advantage.

Q: What memory do these GPUs use?

A: Both use system shared memory. There is no dedicated VRAM, no separate memory type, and no fixed bus width. Memory bandwidth is system dependent, meaning it varies based on the host laptop's memory configuration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for these two GPUs, so the comparison relies on the specification-derived performance indicators. The largest win for the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile appears in FP32 compute. At 1,280.0 GFLOPS, it holds a 563.2 GFLOPS advantage over the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. This is a 78.6% lead, a margin that would be visible in any compute-bound application such as video encoding filters, physics simulations, or GPU-accelerated image processing.

The pixel fillrate comparison shows the same pattern. The Intel part's 20.00 GPixel/s versus the AMD part's 11.20 GPixel/s is an 8.80 GPixel/s gap, or 78.6% higher. Texture fillrate follows exactly: 40.00 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s, again an 78.6% lead. These identical percentages reflect the structural doubling of ROPs and TMUs, combined with the clock difference that slightly narrows the gap from a pure 2:1 ratio.

The AMD Radeon 820M's strongest counterpoint is its boost clock. At 2800 MHz, it runs 12% higher than the Intel part's 2500 MHz. This does not overcome the resource deficit, but it does keep the AMD part closer in real-world performance than the raw shader count might suggest. The AMD part also has an advantage in power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP versus 25 W, a 10 W difference that represents a 40% reduction in power draw.

In FP16 workloads, the Intel part's 2.560 TFLOPS is 3.57 times the AMD part's 716.8 GFLOPS. This is the largest relative margin in the comparison, driven by the Intel architecture's 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio versus the AMD part's 1:1 ratio. For any application that can use half-precision, the Intel part is clearly superior.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, which suggests that neither is a high-end part. The absence of recorded benchmark scores and nearest rival data means the percentile is the only positional information available. Based on the specification analysis, the Intel part should rank higher in compute-heavy tests, while the AMD part may perform competitively in power-constrained scenarios.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon 820M and Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile:

• Architecture: RDNA 3.5 versus Xe3-LPG
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) versus Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake)
• Process Node: 4 nm versus 3 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Base Clock: 400 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2800 MHz versus 2500 MHz
• Shading Units: 128 versus 256
• Texture Mapping Units: 8 versus 16
• Raster Output Units: 4 versus 8
• Ray Tracing Cores: 2 versus 2 (same count, but part of different architectures)
• Pixel Rate: 11.20 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 22.40 GTexel/s versus 40.00 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 716.8 GFLOPS versus 1,280.0 GFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 15 W versus 25 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus IGP
• Release Date: 2025-02-28 versus 2026-04-15
• Predecessor: Navi II IGP versus HD Graphics-M

Fields that are identical include memory size (system shared), memory type (system shared), bus width (system shared), bandwidth (system dependent), API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), display outputs (portable device dependent), and production status (Active). Neither part has a launch MSRP listed in the database, and both have no recorded benchmark scores or nearest rival data.