AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc 130V Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for both the AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Arc 130V Mobile shows a clear split based on workload characteristics, though neither part holds a universal advantage. The AMD Radeon 840M, built on the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, is configured for efficiency and lower power draw. Its 15 W thermal design power makes it suited for thin-and-light systems where thermal headroom is minimal. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile, by contrast, operates at a 37 W TDP, indicating it is designed for systems that can sustain higher sustained loads.

In terms of raw throughput, the Intel part dominates the compute-heavy categories. The Arc 130V Mobile delivers 3.315 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, more than double the 1,484.8 GFLOPS (or 1.4848 TFLOPS) of the Radeon 840M. This translates to a substantial lead in general-purpose shader work, which includes tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and compute shaders in games. The Intel part also leads in pixel and texture throughput: 51.80 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, and 103.6 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s. For resolution-heavy workloads that stress fill rate, the Arc 130V Mobile is the clear choice.

However, the Radeon 840M counters with architectural efficiency. Its boost clock of 2900 MHz is significantly higher than the Arc 130V Mobile's 1850 MHz boost. This clock advantage allows the AMD part to extract more performance per watt in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive scenarios. The Radeon 840M also supports a 1:1 FP16 ratio, meaning its half-precision throughput matches its FP32 rate at 1,484.8 GFLOPS. In contrast, the Intel part uses a 2:1 ratio, delivering 6.630 TFLOPS of FP16, which is higher in absolute terms but indicates a different design priority.

The data indicates that the Intel Arc 130V Mobile wins in brute-force compute, fill rate, and ray tracing resources (7 RT cores versus 4). The AMD Radeon 840M wins in clock speed, power efficiency, and architectural simplicity. For users prioritizing battery life and moderate gaming, the Radeon 840M is the more balanced option. For users demanding maximum frame rates or compute throughput in a mobile IGP, the Arc 130V Mobile is the stronger performer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a boost clock of 1850 MHz.

Q: How do the two compare in FP32 floating-point performance?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile delivers 3.315 TFLOPS of FP32, which is more than double the 1,484.8 GFLOPS of the AMD Radeon 840M.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a 37 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has 896 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Arc 130V Mobile support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the ray tracing core counts?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has 7 ray tracing cores, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 4 ray tracing cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data for these two integrated GPUs shows zero recorded matches in the database, so the comparison relies on the architectural specifications and computed throughput rates. The largest single advantage belongs to the Intel Arc 130V Mobile in FP32 compute. At 3.315 TFLOPS, it is approximately 123% faster than the Radeon 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. This margin is decisive for any workload that scales with raw shader count, such as physics simulations or compute-heavy post-processing effects.

The Intel part also shows a commanding lead in texture fill rate. With 103.6 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, the Arc 130V Mobile is roughly 123% faster in this metric as well. This matters for games that rely heavily on texture sampling and anisotropic filtering. Similarly, the pixel fill rate of 51.80 GPixel/s on the Intel part is over double the 23.20 GPixel/s of the AMD part, which indicates better performance at higher resolutions or with heavy overdraw.

The AMD Radeon 840M does have a notable advantage in clock speed. Its 2900 MHz boost is about 57% higher than the 1850 MHz boost of the Intel Arc 130V Mobile. This does not overcome the Intel part's massive resource advantage, but it does suggest that the AMD GPU can respond faster to latency-sensitive tasks and may exhibit lower frame time variance in certain scenarios. The AMD part also has a smaller die footprint, though the exact die size for the Radeon 840M is listed as unknown, while the Intel chip measures 172 mm².

In ray tracing, the Intel Arc 130V Mobile has 7 RT cores versus 4 on the AMD Radeon 840M. This is a 75% advantage in dedicated hardware for ray-traced effects. For games that use hardware-accelerated ray tracing, the Intel part should deliver higher performance, assuming driver support is comparable. The Intel part also has more texture mapping units (56 versus 16) and more render output units (28 versus 8), reinforcing its lead in both texture and pixel processing.

The FP16 comparison is interesting. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile delivers 6.630 TFLOPS of FP16, which is exactly double its FP32 rate, indicating a 2:1 ratio. The AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP16, matching its FP32 rate at 1:1. While the Intel part has a higher absolute FP16 throughput, the AMD part's 1:1 ratio means it does not gain extra performance from half-precision workloads. This could influence AI inference or compute tasks that use FP16, where the Intel part's higher absolute throughput gives it an edge.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every major specification category. The AMD Radeon 840M uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses a 3 nm process node, also from TSMC. The Intel part has a known die size of 172 mm², while the AMD part's die size is listed as unknown. Both use system-shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, and both have system-dependent bandwidth.

The base clock differs: the AMD part runs at 400 MHz, while the Intel part runs at 300 MHz. The boost clocks are reversed, with the AMD part at 2900 MHz and the Intel part at 1850 MHz. The AMD Radeon 840M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses a generic IGP bus interface with no specific PCIe lanes listed.

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor the Intel part: 896 shading units versus 256, 56 TMUs versus 16, and 28 ROPs versus 8. The ray tracing core counts are 7 for Intel and 4 for AMD. The pixel rate is 51.80 GPixel/s for Intel versus 23.20 GPixel/s for AMD, and the texture rate is 103.6 GTexel/s for Intel versus 46.40 GTexel/s for AMD.

The FP32 performance is listed as 3.315 TFLOPS for Intel and 1,484.8 GFLOPS for AMD. The FP16 performance is 6.630 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel and 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) for AMD. The thermal design power is 37 W for Intel and 15 W for AMD. The power connectors are listed as "None" for AMD, while Intel has no data for this field. The release dates differ: the Intel part was released on 2024-09-23, while the AMD part was released on 2025-02-28.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The AMD Radeon 840M is based on RDNA 3.5, which is an evolution of AMD's gaming-focused GPU architecture. It is part of the Navi III IGP generation, specifically for Strix Point Mobile, and uses the Krackan Point chip. RDNA 3.5 emphasizes efficiency and clock speed, which is reflected in the 2900 MHz boost clock and the 15 W TDP. The 1:1 FP16 ratio suggests that the architecture does not dedicate extra hardware to half-precision compute, which is typical for gaming-first designs.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is based on Xe2-LPG, an architecture derived from Intel's discrete Arc graphics lineup. It is part of the Arc Graphics-M generation for Lunar Lake. The Xe2-LPG architecture uses a 2:1 FP16 ratio, meaning it can process half-precision data at twice the rate of FP32. This is a compute-focused design choice, favoring AI workloads and certain scientific calculations. The higher TDP of 37 W and the larger die size of 172 mm² indicate a more complex silicon layout with more execution resources.

The shading unit count is the most telling architectural difference. The Intel part has 896 shading units, which is 3.5 times the 256 on the AMD part. This massive disparity explains the FP32 and texture rate differences. The Intel part also has more RT cores (7 versus 4), indicating a stronger investment in ray tracing hardware. The AMD part compensates with a much higher boost clock, which can mitigate some of the raw resource disadvantage in workloads that are not perfectly parallel.

The process node difference is also notable: 3 nm for Intel versus 4 nm for AMD. The 3 nm node allows Intel to pack more transistors into the 172 mm² die, though the AMD die size is unknown. The bus interface differs as well, with AMD using a PCIe 4.0 x8 connection, while Intel uses a generic IGP interface. This could affect how each GPU accesses system memory, though the actual bandwidth is listed as system-dependent for both.

Both GPUs support the same API set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means they are both capable of modern graphics features like ray tracing and mesh shaders, though the hardware implementation differs. The AMD part is newer by release date, coming out in 2025-02-28 versus 2024-09-23 for Intel. Both are listed as Active in production status, and both are IGPs with no dedicated power connectors or display outputs beyond what the host device provides.