AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc Graphics 24EU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for these two integrated graphics processors presents an unusual comparison landscape. The AMD Radeon 820M, built on the Krackan Point 2 chip, carries a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs in the database, positioning it at the midpoint of the performance distribution. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, by contrast, sits at the 3rd percentile, indicating that the vast majority of recorded GPUs outperform it. This stark percentile gap suggests the AMD solution is in a different performance class entirely, despite both being integrated parts.

The AMD Radeon 820M shows no recorded benchmark entries in the database, which limits direct quantitative comparison. However, its percentile score of 50 versus Intel's 3 provides a meaningful interpretive signal. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has one recorded benchmark result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. This single data point anchors the Intel part's performance profile, and the nearest rivals for Intel all cluster within a narrow band. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU both score exactly 733, showing a 0 percent delta, while the AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, 1.4 percent behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, 2.4 percent ahead.

The use-case split becomes clear from these figures. The AMD Radeon 820M, with its higher percentile placement, is positioned for tasks where the database indicates broader competitive standing, such as general 3D rendering workloads or modern API utilization. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, given its 3rd percentile rank, appears suited only for the lightest graphical tasks, those that do not stress modern rendering pipelines. The Intel part's nearest rivals include decade-old discrete mobile GPUs, which suggests its performance envelope aligns with legacy-level workloads rather than contemporary gaming or compute demands.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU compare to its closest recorded rivals?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU scores 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU both match this at 733, a 0 percent delta. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, 1.4 percent lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, 2.4 percent higher.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each part?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M ranks at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU ranks at the 3rd percentile, a substantial gap indicating the AMD part sits near the median while Intel sits near the bottom.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of these two integrated graphics processors?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M boosts to 2800 MHz from a 400 MHz base clock. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU boosts to 2000 MHz from a 300 MHz base clock. The AMD part operates at a higher frequency in both states.

Q: Which architecture does each processor use?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5, part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses Xe-LPG, part of the Arc Graphics generation for Arrow Lake.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for these parts?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has 192 shading units. Despite fewer shading units, the AMD part achieves a higher percentile ranking.

Q: What pixel and texture rates does each processor deliver?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU delivers 12.00 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s. Intel leads slightly in both metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU. The wins count stands at zero for both parts in this specific pairing. However, the available benchmark data for Intel and the percentile rankings for both allow for meaningful inference.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU's single recorded score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in a tight competitive cluster. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU both score identically at 733, confirming that within Intel's own lineup, the 24EU configuration does not trail its larger siblings in this specific test. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails by 10 points, 1.4 percent behind, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads by 18 points, 2.4 percent ahead. This cluster of scores spanning just 28 points illustrates how closely these older and lower-end parts perform in the Steel Nomad workload.

The AMD Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, yet its 50th percentile ranking implies a substantial performance advantage over the Intel part. A GPU at the median of all recorded GPUs would be expected to outperform one at the 3rd percentile by a significant margin across most workloads. The Intel part's nearest rivals, which include the Radeon HD 6470M and GeForce GT 415M from the early 2010s, suggest its performance level corresponds to that era of mobile graphics.

The FP32 compute figures show the AMD Radeon 820M delivering 716.8 GFLOPS against Intel's 768.0 GFLOPS, with Intel holding a 7.1 percent raw compute advantage. The texture rate similarly favors Intel at 24.00 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s, a 7.1 percent lead. The pixel rate shows Intel ahead at 12.00 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s, a 7.1 percent lead. These consistent margins suggest Intel's architecture scales its throughput advantage across multiple output stages.

Yet the percentile gap tells a different story. The AMD part's 50th percentile versus Intel's 3rd indicates that raw throughput figures alone do not determine real-world standing in the database. The AMD Radeon 820M's RDNA 3.5 architecture, with 2 ray tracing cores, may deliver efficiency or feature advantages that the raw FP32 and pixel rate numbers do not capture. The Intel part lacks dedicated ray tracing cores entirely.

Specification Differences

The clock configurations differ substantially. The AMD Radeon 820M runs at a 400 MHz base clock and boosts to 2800 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 2000 MHz. AMD's boost clock exceeds Intel's by 800 MHz, a 40 percent higher peak frequency.

The shading unit counts favor Intel. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU contains 192 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 820M contains 128. Intel also leads in texture mapping units with 12 versus 8, and in render output units with 6 versus 4. These architectural resource differences contribute to Intel's higher pixel and texture rates.

The thermal design power differs considerably. The AMD Radeon 820M carries a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU carries a 65 W TDP. This 50 W difference indicates the Intel part requires substantially more power for its integrated graphics operation, yet still ranks at the 3rd percentile.

The bus interface differs as well. The AMD Radeon 820M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses a Ring Bus connection. This difference reflects the integration approach each manufacturer takes for their mobile and desktop platforms respectively.

The process nodes differ. The AMD Radeon 820M is fabricated on a 4 nm process, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses a 3 nm process. Both are produced by TSMC, but the Intel part uses a more advanced node. The Intel part also reports 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a transistor density of 73.3M per mm². The AMD part does not report transistor or die size data.

The release dates differ by roughly four months. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU launched on 2024-10-23, while the AMD Radeon 820M launched on 2025-02-28.

Architecture Differences

The architectural foundations of these two parts diverge completely. The AMD Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5, representing the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. It includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the Intel part. The ray tracing hardware, combined with the RDNA 3.5 design, enables DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) API support, which both parts share alongside OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 support.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses Xe-LPG, part of the Arc Graphics generation for Arrow Lake. This architecture lacks dedicated ray tracing cores, though it still supports the same DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API set. The Xe-LPG architecture handles FP16 compute at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 1.536 TFLOPS, while the RDNA 3.5 architecture processes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, delivering 716.8 GFLOPS. This gives Intel a 2.1 times advantage in half-precision compute throughput.

The FP32 figures show Intel slightly ahead at 768.0 GFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. The FP16 advantage for Intel is more pronounced, suggesting the Xe-LPG architecture allocates significant resources to half-precision workloads, which are common in AI inference and certain graphics effects.

The transistor counts differ dramatically where reported. The Intel part contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, reflecting a full Arrow Lake-S chip. The AMD part does not report its transistor count or die size. The Intel die size and transistor density of 73.3M per mm² indicate a dense, complex chip, while the AMD part's figures remain unrecorded.

The display outputs differ in their dependency. The AMD Radeon 820M uses portable device dependent outputs, reflecting its mobile-oriented Krackan Point integration. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses motherboard dependent outputs, reflecting its Arrow Lake-S desktop platform placement.

The predecessor relationships also differ. The AMD Radeon 820M succeeds the Navi II IGP, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU succeeds HD Graphics. Both parts remain in active production status, and neither has a recorded successor.

The Verdict

The database positions these two integrated graphics processors in different performance strata. The AMD Radeon 820M holds a 50th percentile rank across all GPUs, placing it at the median of the entire recorded spectrum. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU sits at the 3rd percentile, placing it among the bottom tier of recorded GPUs. For any workload where the database's percentile ranking reflects real-world capability, the AMD part holds a decisive positional advantage.

The raw throughput numbers favor Intel in several categories. The Intel part delivers higher FP32 compute at 768.0 GFLOPS, higher texture rate at 24.00 GTexel/s, higher pixel rate at 12.00 GPixel/s, and more shading units at 192. Its FP16 throughput of 1.536 TFLOPS more than doubles the AMD part's 716.8 GFLOPS. Yet these advantages do not translate into a better percentile standing, indicating that the database's overall performance picture accounts for factors beyond raw throughput.

The Intel part's recorded benchmark score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 aligns it with the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU at identical scores, and with the AMD Radeon HD 6470M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M within a 28-point band. This cluster represents the performance neighborhood where the Intel 24EU operates. The AMD Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark scores, but its 50th percentile rank against all GPUs suggests it operates in a different neighborhood entirely.

The power requirements differ by a factor greater than four, with the AMD part at 15 W and the Intel part at 65 W. The AMD part achieves its higher percentile standing at lower power, suggesting superior efficiency in the database's performance-per-watt picture. The Intel part's higher TDP may reflect its integration into a desktop-class Arrow Lake-S chip rather than a mobile-focused design.

For systems where the integrated GPU must handle modern 3D workloads, the AMD Radeon 820M's median percentile rank indicates it can manage tasks that the Intel part, at the 3rd percentile, would struggle to handle. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, given its positioning alongside early-2010s discrete mobile GPUs, suits only legacy or minimal graphical requirements. The AMD part's RDNA 3.5 architecture with ray tracing cores also provides hardware features that the Xe-LPG architecture lacks, potentially enabling effects and workloads that the Intel part cannot accelerate.

The choice between these parts follows directly from the data. The AMD Radeon 820M serves users whose integrated graphics must handle contemporary rendering demands, as its median percentile ranking demonstrates broad capability. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU serves users with minimal graphical needs, where the 3rd percentile ranking and 733 Steel Nomad score indicate only the lightest workloads are feasible. The performance gap is not marginal; it spans 47 percentile points in the database's ranking system.