AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc Graphics 24EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU. However, the available performance metrics and database comparisons allow for a meaningful analysis of their relative standing.

The AMD Radeon 840M is positioned at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating it performs better than half of the recorded graphics processors. In contrast, the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU sits at the 3rd percentile, placing it firmly in the lower performance tier. This percentile gap is substantial and suggests a significant performance disparity in favor of the AMD part.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, both with identical average scores of 733, resulting in a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4% below the Arc 24EU, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, representing a 2.4% advantage over the Arc 24EU. These figures show that the Arc 24EU performs within a narrow band around the 733 score mark, with its closest competitors differing by only a few percentage points.

The AMD Radeon 840M has no recorded benchmark scores or nearest rival entries in the database. Its percentile placement at 50, however, provides a clear reference point. A GPU at the 50th percentile substantially outperforms one at the 3rd percentile, which means the Radeon 840M is expected to deliver considerably higher frame rates in most scenarios.

Looking at raw compute capabilities, the Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc 24EU delivers 768.0 GFLOPS. This represents a 93.3% advantage for the AMD part in single-precision floating-point throughput. The texture rate follows a similar pattern: the Radeon 840M achieves 46.40 GTexel/s compared to 24.00 GTexel/s for the Arc 24EU, a 93.3% difference. Pixel throughput shows an even larger gap, with the Radeon 840M producing 23.20 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part, a 93.3% difference as well.

The Radeon 840M also operates at higher clock speeds, with a boost clock of 2900 MHz compared to 2000 MHz for the Arc 24EU. Its base clock of 400 MHz exceeds the Arc 24EU's 300 MHz base. The AMD part has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units, while the Intel part has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. These architectural advantages compound the clock speed benefits, resulting in the substantial performance lead indicated by the percentile rankings.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon 840M for general graphics performance. Its 50th percentile ranking versus the 3rd percentile for the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU indicates that the AMD part belongs to a different performance class entirely. The Radeon 840M delivers nearly double the FP32 throughput, texture rate, and pixel rate of the Arc 24EU, which translates directly to better frame rates in both gaming and compute workloads.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU does hold a few advantages based on the recorded specifications. It uses a more advanced 3 nm process node compared to the 4 nm node of the Radeon 840M, and it has a higher TDP of 65 W versus 15 W for the AMD part. The higher power envelope suggests the Arc 24EU may be intended for desktop platforms where power draw is less constrained, whereas the Radeon 840M's 15 W TDP positions it for efficient mobile implementations.

The Arc 24EU also delivers higher FP16 performance in terms of raw throughput, achieving 1.536 TFLOPS compared to 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the Radeon 840M. However, this advantage comes with a caveat: the Intel part uses a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the AMD part maintains a 1:1 ratio. In workloads that rely on FP32 precision, the Radeon 840M retains its lead.

For users selecting between these two integrated graphics solutions, the choice depends on the platform. The Radeon 840M, built on the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, offers superior raw graphics performance within a 15 W envelope. The Arc 24EU, based on the Arrow Lake-S chip with Xe-LPG architecture, provides competitive FP16 throughput and benefits from a more recent 3 nm process, but its overall graphics capability ranks far lower in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process node, built on the Krackan Point chip. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile platforms. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process node, built on the Arrow Lake-S chip, and belongs to the Arc Graphics generation for Arrow Lake platforms.

The process node difference is notable: the Intel part uses a more advanced 3 nm node, which typically allows for higher transistor density and improved power efficiency. The Intel chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 73.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD chip's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The Radeon 840M features 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. It also includes 4 dedicated ray tracing cores, which the Arc 24EU lacks entirely. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, matching the API support of the Intel part. Both GPUs support the same API versions, so software compatibility is not a differentiator.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The Arc 24EU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The AMD part's higher clocks contribute substantially to its performance advantage, as does its larger shading unit count.

Memory configurations are identical in structure: both use system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Neither GPU has dedicated VRAM, so performance will depend heavily on the host system's memory subsystem. The bus interface differs, with the Radeon 840M using PCIe 4.0 x8 and the Arc 24EU using a Ring Bus connection.

The Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Arc 24EU has a TDP of 65 W. This is a significant difference in power consumption, with the Intel part drawing over four times the power of the AMD part. The display outputs are portable device dependent for the AMD part and motherboard dependent for the Intel part, reflecting their different target platforms.

The Radeon 840M was released on February 28, 2025, succeeding the Navi II IGP. The Arc 24EU was released on October 23, 2024, succeeding HD Graphics. The production status for both is Active.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better overall performance according to the database?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M ranks at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU ranks at the 3rd percentile. This indicates the Radeon 840M delivers substantially better overall performance.

Q: How do the FP32 compute capabilities compare?

A: The Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc 24EU delivers 768.0 GFLOPS. The AMD part provides approximately 93% more FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU have any performance advantages?

A: The Arc 24EU achieves 1.536 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, which exceeds the 1,484.8 GFLOPS of the Radeon 840M. However, the Intel part uses a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the AMD part uses a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Arc 24EU has a TDP of 65 W. The Intel part consumes significantly more power, which may reflect its desktop-oriented design.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing support?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M includes 4 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU does not list any ray tracing cores in its specifications.

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

A: The Arc 24EU scores 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, matching the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU exactly. It is 1.4% faster than the AMD Radeon HD 6470M and 2.4% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in raw graphics compute. Its FP32 throughput of 1,484.8 GFLOPS is nearly double the 768.0 GFLOPS of the Arc 24EU. This advantage extends to texture and pixel processing, where the Radeon 840M achieves 46.40 GTexel/s and 23.20 GPixel/s respectively, compared to 24.00 GTexel/s and 12.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part. The Radeon 840M also benefits from its 4 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads that the Arc 24EU cannot handle.

The Radeon 840M wins in power efficiency relative to performance. With a 15 W TDP, it delivers more than double the FP32 throughput of the Arc 24EU while consuming less than a quarter of the power. This makes the AMD part suitable for power-constrained mobile platforms where sustained performance matters.

The Radeon 840M wins in clock speed. Its boost clock of 2900 MHz exceeds the 2000 MHz boost of the Arc 24EU by 45%. The base clock of 400 MHz also surpasses the 300 MHz base of the Intel part. Higher clocks translate to better responsiveness in burst workloads and lower-latency frame delivery.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU wins in FP16 throughput. Its 1.536 TFLOPS exceeds the 1,484.8 GFLOPS of the Radeon 840M, despite the Intel part's lower overall compute capabilities. Workloads that can leverage FP16 precision, such as certain machine learning inference tasks, may see better performance on the Arc 24EU.

The Arc 24EU wins in process technology. The 3 nm TSMC node used by Intel is more advanced than the 4 nm node used by AMD. The Intel chip also has a higher transistor count at 17,800 million, though the AMD chip's transistor count is not recorded for direct comparison.

The Arc 24EU wins in platform flexibility for desktop systems. With a 65 W TDP and motherboard-dependent display outputs, it is designed for integration into desktop motherboards where power is more available. The Radeon 840M's portable device dependent outputs and 15 W TDP indicate a mobile-first design.

The Arc 24EU wins in the narrow benchmark band around its 733 3DMark Steel Nomad score. It matches the performance of the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU exactly, and it outperforms the AMD Radeon HD 6470M by 1.4%. This consistency across Intel's integrated graphics lineup suggests predictable performance scaling within the Arc family.