AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M and Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile are both integrated graphics solutions aimed at thin-and-light laptops, yet they approach the task from different architectural and process standpoints. The database records no head-to-head benchmark runs for this pair, so the comparison relies on the measured specifications and performance ceilings provided in the recorded data. The AMD part is built on TSMC's 4 nm process with RDNA 3.5 architecture, while Intel uses its own 3 nm node with Xe3-LPG architecture. Both deliver a DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, but the raw compute and rasterization figures favor the AMD silicon in every measured category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark scores for these two GPUs, so head-to-head results are derived from the recorded peak throughput rates. The AMD Radeon 840M posts a pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s against the Intel part's 20.00 GPixel/s, a difference of 3.20 GPixel/s or 16% in favor of AMD. Texture rate follows the same pattern: AMD reaches 46.40 GTexel/s, while Intel manages 40.00 GTexel/s, again a 16% advantage for AMD. These figures indicate that in fill-rate-bound scenes, such as high-resolution texture streaming or heavy alpha blending, the AMD solution should complete work faster per clock.

The FP32 performance gap is slightly smaller in relative terms. AMD's 1,484.8 GFLOPS tops Intel's 1,280.0 GFLOPS, a lead of 204.8 GFLOPS, which works out to 16% more single-precision compute. This matters for general shader work, particle effects, and non-tensor AI inference tasks that rely on FP32. In FP16, the comparison flips dramatically. AMD delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning the same throughput as FP32. Intel provides 2.560 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, so its FP16 rate is 2,560.0 GFLOPS, roughly 72% higher than AMD's FP16 figure. Applications that can use half-precision math, including certain machine learning inference routines and some image processing filters, will run faster on the Intel part.

Clock speeds also differ. AMD lists a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. Intel starts at 300 MHz base and boosts to 2500 MHz. The AMD boost clock is 400 MHz higher, which contributes to its rasterization lead despite identical core counts. Both GPUs have 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, so the performance delta comes from clock speed and architecture efficiency rather than execution resource count. The recorded data shows no wins assigned to either GPU in the head-to-head benchmark field, but the specification-derived rates provide the measurable comparison.

Architecture Differences

The process nodes separate these two integrated GPUs. AMD uses TSMC's 4 nm process, while Intel fabricates its chip on a 3 nm process. The Intel node is one step smaller in the recorded process naming, which typically allows higher transistor density at equivalent power, although no transistor counts or die sizes are recorded for either part. AMD's architecture is RDNA 3.5, the latest iteration of the RDNA line used in the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. Intel counters with Xe3-LPG, the architecture behind the Arc Graphics-M generation built on the Wildcat Lake chip.

Ray tracing hardware differs in count. AMD includes 4 RT cores, Intel only 2. The database shows both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, so ray-traced effects are possible on both, but AMD has twice the RT core count. That should improve ray-traced shadow and reflection workloads when the game engine scales across RT hardware. Neither part has tensor cores listed, so dedicated AI acceleration hardware is absent from the recorded specifications for both GPUs.

Memory architecture is identical in structure. Both use System Shared memory, with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. The memory type is System Shared for both, meaning the actual performance depends entirely on the laptop's main memory configuration, which the database does not specify for either part. The bus interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel's interface is listed simply as IGP. This suggests AMD's implementation can leverage a dedicated PCIe link for certain data transfers, while Intel's integrated design routes through the standard IGP path.

The FP16 implementation highlights a key architectural split. AMD runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so its half-precision throughput equals its single-precision throughput. Intel uses a 2:1 ratio, doubling FP16 throughput relative to FP32. This indicates Intel's Xe3-LPG pipeline is optimized for half-precision operations, likely for AI workloads or media processing, whereas AMD's RDNA 3.5 keeps FP16 and FP32 on equal footing. The power envelope also differs: AMD is rated at 15 W TDP, Intel at 25 W TDP. That 10 W difference means the Intel part draws more power to achieve its FP16 lead, while AMD achieves its rasterization advantages at a lower power budget.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in fill-rate and single-precision workloads. Its 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 46.40 GTexel/s texture rate outpace Intel by 16% in both metrics. Games and applications that stress traditional rasterization, such as standard 3D rendering, post-processing effects, and texture-heavy scenes, should favor AMD. The higher 2900 MHz boost clock supports this advantage, and the 4 RT cores give it a structural edge for ray-traced content. AMD also holds the process node story from a power perspective: 15 W TDP versus 25 W for Intel means it delivers higher FP32 and fill rates while drawing 10 W less.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins in half-precision compute. Its 2.560 TFLOPS FP16 output is 72% higher than AMD's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. This makes Intel the better choice for workloads that can use FP16 math, such as certain AI inference models, some image processing filters, and media encoding pipelines that rely on half-precision arithmetic. The 3 nm process node, smaller than AMD's 4 nm node, may also provide efficiency benefits in the same power class, although the recorded TDP is higher at 25 W. Intel's 2 RT cores are fewer than AMD's 4, so ray-traced workloads remain a weak point for Intel.

The power split matters for system design. AMD's 15 W TDP fits into thinner, passively cooled designs or laptops with smaller batteries. Intel's 25 W TDP requires more thermal headroom, which may limit its deployment to larger chassis or designs with more aggressive cooling. The bus interface difference reinforces this: AMD's PCIe 4.0 x8 link provides a dedicated path for external data, while Intel's IGP interface is more conventional for integrated parts.

The Verdict

The recorded data favors the AMD Radeon 840M for general graphics performance. It leads in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute, all by 16%, while consuming 10 W less power. The 4 RT cores double Intel's ray tracing hardware count, and the 2900 MHz boost clock is 400 MHz higher. For typical gaming on integrated graphics, where rasterization and shader work dominate, AMD delivers more throughput per watt.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is the pick when FP16 throughput matters. Its 2.560 TFLOPS half-precision rate is 72% ahead of AMD, and the 3 nm process node represents a newer manufacturing generation. The 25 W TDP is a trade-off, but for applications that offload significant work to FP16, such as AI inference or certain media tasks, Intel's architecture provides a clear advantage. Neither GPU has recorded benchmark scores, so these conclusions derive from the specification-level rates in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile boosts to 2500 MHz, a 400 MHz difference.

Q: How do the FP32 compute rates compare?

A: AMD delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which is 16% ahead of Intel's 1,280.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has 4 RT cores, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 2 RT cores.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference?

A: Intel reaches 2.560 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while AMD provides 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, making Intel's FP16 output 72% higher.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M is rated at 15 W, and the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is rated at 25 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both are listed as DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Xe3-LPG |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 2500 MHz |

| RT Cores | 4 | 2 |

| FP32 Performance | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 1,280.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 20.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 40.00 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | IGP |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2026-04-15 |

The shading units (256), TMUs (16), ROPs (8), memory type (System Shared), bus width (System Shared), and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4) are identical across both parts. The AMD GPU released earlier, on 2025-02-28, while Intel's part arrived later, on 2026-04-15. Both remain Active in production status, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. The Intel part's FP16 advantage and AMD's rasterization and power-efficiency lead define the practical choice between these two integrated solutions.