AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M boosts up to 2800 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile boosts up to 2300 MHz. The AMD part runs 500 MHz higher at the top end.

Q: How do the two compare in raw FP32 compute?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 3.29 times the 716.8 GFLOPS of the AMD Radeon 820M. Intel holds a substantial lead in raw shader throughput.

Q: What are the pixel and texture throughput differences?

A: Intel achieves 36.80 GPixel/s and 73.60 GTexel/s. AMD achieves 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. Intel is 3.29 times faster in both pixel fill and texture fill.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: Yes. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. API feature parity is complete between the two parts.

Q: What are the power envelopes of the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a 15 W TDP. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a 25 W TDP. Intel consumes 10 W more.

Q: When did each GPU launch?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M launched on 2025-02-28. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile launched on 2026-01-26. The Intel part is newer by about 11 months.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture using the Krackan Point 2 chip, part of the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Panther Lake chip, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. Intel fabricates this part on its own 3 nm process. The process node difference matters: Intel's 3 nm node is a generation ahead of AMD's 4 nm node.

The two GPUs diverge sharply in execution resources. AMD fields 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. Intel fields 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 4x advantage for Intel in each category. The ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: AMD includes 2 RT cores, Intel includes 4 RT cores. The Intel part has twice the ray tracing hardware.

Memory architecture is similar in structure. Both use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width. Neither GPU has dedicated VRAM. Both are integrated graphics parts, listed as IGP in slot width, with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The AMD part connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel part is listed simply as IGP for its bus interface.

Clock behavior differs significantly. AMD's base clock is 400 MHz with a boost of 2800 MHz. Intel's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 2300 MHz. AMD starts lower but boosts higher. The FP16 throughput ratio also differs: AMD runs FP16 at 1:1 with FP32, both at 716.8 GFLOPS. Intel runs FP16 at 2:1, delivering 4.710 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS for FP32. This means Intel's FP16 advantage is exactly 6.57 times AMD's FP16 output.

Power delivery is a core architectural difference. AMD operates at 15 W TDP, Intel at 25 W TDP. The 10 W gap explains part of Intel's performance advantage, but the 4x resource count means Intel's efficiency per shading unit is still favorable.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark runs between these two GPUs. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and both parts show zero average benchmark scores. The comparison therefore rests on the architectural specifications and calculated throughput rates available in the database.

The largest measured gap is in FP32 compute. Intel's 2.355 TFLOPS versus AMD's 716.8 GFLOPS gives Intel a 3.29x lead. This is the headline number. It means for every floating-point operation the AMD part completes, the Intel part completes roughly three and a quarter.

Pixel fill rate follows the same ratio. Intel's 36.80 GPixel/s is exactly 3.29x AMD's 11.20 GPixel/s. Texture fill rate also matches: 73.60 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s, again a 3.29x gap. The consistency across FP32, pixel rate, and texture rate indicates that the Intel part's 4x resource advantage is partially offset by its lower boost clock. Intel runs 512 shading units at 2300 MHz; AMD runs 128 shading units at 2800 MHz. The clock deficit of 500 MHz prevents Intel from reaching a full 4x lead.

FP16 compute shows the widest single gap. Intel's 4.710 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio is 6.57x AMD's 716.8 GFLOPS at 1:1 ratio. Applications that use FP16 heavily will see the biggest relative difference between these two parts.

Ray tracing hardware favors Intel by 2x in core count (4 versus 2). The database does not list a ray tracing throughput figure, so the comparison is limited to hardware presence. Intel has more RT hardware, but no measured performance number is available.

The AMD part has one clear clock advantage: a 2800 MHz boost versus 2300 MHz. This does not overcome the resource deficit. The 500 MHz boost advantage is a 21.7% clock lead, but it operates across only one quarter of the shading units.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict: the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is the faster GPU in every measured throughput category. The FP32 gap of 3.29x is decisive. The pixel rate gap of 3.29x is decisive. The texture rate gap of 3.29x is decisive. The FP16 gap of 6.57x is overwhelming.

The AMD Radeon 820M does not win any head-to-head performance category in the recorded specifications. Its advantages are limited to a higher boost clock (2800 MHz versus 2300 MHz), a lower TDP (15 W versus 25 W), an earlier release date, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. None of these translate into a performance win.

The Intel part also has the architectural edge. It uses a newer 3 nm process versus AMD's 4 nm, has 4x the shading units, 4x the TMUs, 4x the ROPs, and 2x the RT cores. The only tradeoff is power: 25 W versus 15 W. For any workload where GPU throughput matters, the Intel part is the correct choice based on the data.

For workloads where power draw is the primary constraint, the AMD part has a documented 10 W TDP advantage. That is the only scenario where the data favors AMD. The performance-per-watt comparison is not directly listed, but the raw numbers show Intel delivers 3.29x the FP32 output at 1.67x the power draw. Intel's efficiency advantage is substantial.

Specification Differences

Process node: AMD uses 4 nm (TSMC). Intel uses 3 nm (Intel).

Base clock: AMD 400 MHz. Intel 300 MHz.

Boost clock: AMD 2800 MHz. Intel 2300 MHz.

Shading units: AMD 128. Intel 512.

TMUs: AMD 8. Intel 32.

ROPs: AMD 4. Intel 16.

RT cores: AMD 2. Intel 4.

Pixel rate: AMD 11.20 GPixel/s. Intel 36.80 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: AMD 22.40 GTexel/s. Intel 73.60 GTexel/s.

FP32: AMD 716.8 GFLOPS. Intel 2.355 TFLOPS.

FP16: AMD 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1). Intel 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: AMD 15 W. Intel 25 W.

Bus interface: AMD PCIe 4.0 x8. Intel IGP.

Release date: AMD 2025-02-28. Intel 2026-01-26.

Chip: AMD Krackan Point 2. Intel Panther Lake.

Architecture: AMD RDNA 3.5. Intel Xe3-LPG.

Foundry: AMD TSMC. Intel Intel.

Identical fields include: system shared memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth behavior; DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support; IGP slot width; no power connectors; portable device dependent display outputs; active production status; and no launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in: FP32 compute (2.355 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS), FP16 compute (4.710 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS), pixel fill (36.80 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s), texture fill (73.60 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s), shading units (512 versus 128), TMUs (32 versus 8), ROPs (16 versus 4), RT cores (4 versus 2), process node (3 nm versus 4 nm), and newer release date (2026-01-26 versus 2025-02-28).

The Intel part is the clear pick for any GPU-bound workload: 3D rendering, modern game titles, compute tasks, and any application that can use FP16 acceleration. The 6.57x FP16 advantage makes it particularly strong for AI inference and media workloads that run half-precision math.

AMD Radeon 820M wins in: boost clock (2800 MHz versus 2300 MHz), base clock (400 MHz versus 300 MHz), TDP (15 W versus 25 W), and bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x8 versus IGP).

The AMD part fits systems where the 10 W lower TDP is the deciding factor. Thin-and-light portable designs with tight thermal budgets will prefer the 15 W envelope. The higher boost clock of 2800 MHz also indicates the AMD part can reach higher instantaneous clocks when power and thermals allow, but the lower shading unit count caps its sustained throughput.

The database shows no benchmark wins for either GPU in the head-to-head array, so the win split rests entirely on specification analysis. Based on the recorded data, Intel wins all performance categories and AMD wins the efficiency and clock categories.