AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc 130T Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon 840M or the Intel Arc 130T Mobile. The head-to-head benchmark comparison table is empty, and both parts show an average benchmark score of zero. This means a direct performance ranking cannot be established from measured results. Instead, the available technical specifications and architectural data must be used to project expected behavior.

The raw compute figures reveal a substantial gap in favor of the Intel part. The Arc 130T Mobile delivers 3.942 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Radeon 840M provides 1,484.8 GFLOPS. That places the Intel solution at roughly 2.65 times the single-precision compute rate of the AMD part. In FP16 workloads, the Intel GPU reaches 7.885 TFLOPS due to a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD GPU maintains a 1:1 ratio at 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The Intel advantage in this metric is even more pronounced.

Pixel and texture throughput follow the same pattern. The Arc 130T Mobile renders at 61.60 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s. The Radeon 840M produces 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s. The Intel part is approximately 2.65 times faster in pixel fill rate and also about 2.65 times faster in texture fill rate. These are direct consequences of the Intel GPU having more shading units, texture mapping units, and raster output units.

Clock speeds do not favor the Intel part, yet the larger execution resource pool compensates. The Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the Arc 130T Mobile boosts to 2200 MHz. Despite a 700 MHz lower boost clock, the Intel GPU still leads in every measured throughput category because it has 896 shading units versus 256, 56 TMUs versus 16, and 28 ROPs versus 8.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile wins in all raw computational throughput categories. FP32 compute, FP16 compute, pixel fill rate, and texture fill rate all favor the Intel part by a factor of roughly 2.6 to 2.7. This suggests that graphics workloads that scale with shader count, such as modern game rendering, ray tracing preparation, and high-resolution texture sampling, would see a clear advantage on the Intel GPU. The Arc 130T Mobile also has 7 ray tracing cores compared to 4 on the Radeon 840M, indicating a stronger foundation for ray-traced effects.

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in clock speed and power efficiency. Its boost clock of 2900 MHz is 700 MHz higher than the Intel part's 2200 MHz. Its TDP is 15 W, which is less than half of the Intel part's 35 W. For thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is limited, the AMD solution offers a more favorable performance-per-watt profile. The higher clock speed also helps in workloads that are latency-sensitive or that do not scale perfectly with execution unit count.

In memory bandwidth, both parts are system dependent, meaning the actual performance will vary based on the host platform's memory configuration. Neither GPU has dedicated VRAM, so neither has a fixed bandwidth advantage. The database records both as using system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture and uses the Krackan Point chip. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation under the Strix Point Mobile family. The manufacturing process is 4 nm at TSMC. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture with the Arrow Lake-H chip, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation under the Arrow Lake family. The Intel part uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC.

The process node difference favors AMD. A 4 nm process is more advanced than a 5 nm process, which helps explain the AMD part's lower 15 W TDP despite a much higher boost clock. However, the Intel GPU compensates with a far larger execution footprint. The shading unit count is 896 versus 256, a 3.5 times difference. Texture mapping units are 56 versus 16, a 3.5 times difference. Raster output units are 28 versus 8, also a 3.5 times difference.

Ray tracing hardware differs as well. The Intel part has 7 RT cores, while the AMD part has 4. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither part has tensor cores listed in the database. The bus interface differs: the AMD GPU uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel GPU is listed simply as IGP. Both are integrated graphics processors with no slot width and no power connectors.

The release dates are close. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile was released on 2025-01-12, and the AMD Radeon 840M followed on 2025-02-28. Both parts are listed as Active in production status. The AMD part's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M. Neither has a successor recorded.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Arc 130T Mobile is the stronger graphics processor in raw throughput. Every measured fill rate and compute throughput figure in the database is higher for the Intel part. FP32 compute is 3.942 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS. FP16 compute is 7.885 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Pixel fill rate is 61.60 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s. Texture fill rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s. The Intel GPU also has more than three times the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, plus more ray tracing cores.

The AMD Radeon 840M should be selected for systems where power consumption is the primary constraint. The 15 W TDP is less than half of the Intel part's 35 W TDP. For ultraportable laptops with limited cooling, the AMD part offers a usable graphics solution without demanding the same thermal budget. The higher boost clock of 2900 MHz also indicates that the AMD GPU can reach higher peak frequencies when power allows, which may benefit certain latency-sensitive workloads.

For users who prioritize graphics performance in gaming or creative applications, the Intel Arc 130T Mobile is the data-backed choice. The throughput advantage is consistent across all recorded metrics. The larger execution resource pool, combined with more RT cores, positions the Intel part as the more capable integrated GPU for demanding rendering workloads.

There is no benchmark data to validate real-world behavior, so these conclusions are based solely on architectural specifications and computed throughput rates. The percentile ranking for both GPUs is 50, meaning they sit at the midpoint of all GPUs in the database, but this is a static field and does not reflect measured performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has higher FP32 compute at 3.942 TFLOPS. The AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has a boost clock of 2200 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has 896 shading units. The AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has a TDP of 35 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API level?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has 7 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon 840M has 4 ray tracing cores.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Arc 130T Mobile:

• Chip: Krackan Point versus Arrow Lake-H
• Architecture: RDNA 3.5 versus Xe-LPG+
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) versus Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake)
• Process Node: 4 nm versus 5 nm
• Base Clock: 400 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2900 MHz versus 2200 MHz
• Shading Units: 256 versus 896
• TMUs: 16 versus 56
• ROPs: 8 versus 28
• RT Cores: 4 versus 7
• Pixel Rate: 23.20 GPixel/s versus 61.60 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 46.40 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS
• FP16: 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 15 W versus 35 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus IGP
• Release Date: 2025-02-28 versus 2025-01-12
• Predecessor: Navi II IGP versus HD Graphics-M