AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon 840M and Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile represent two distinct approaches to integrated graphics in the current mobile landscape. The AMD part, built on the Krackan Point chip, uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, while the Intel solution is based on the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture from the Arc Graphics-M generation. Both are active production parts designed for portable devices, with the AMD unit releasing on 2025-02-28 and the Intel unit following on 2026-01-26.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either GPU, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. Both parts hold a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs, and both have an average benchmark score of 0. The absence of measured data means that direct performance comparisons must be derived strictly from the architectural specifications and clock behavior recorded in the database. What the data does show is a clear divergence in raw compute potential. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is approximately 58.6% higher than the AMD Radeon 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. That difference is substantial for integrated graphics where every unit of shader throughput matters. The Intel part achieves this with 512 shading units versus 256 on the AMD chip, and it also doubles the texture mapping units to 32 versus 16, along with 16 ROPs against 8 on the AMD side. The pixel rate tells a similar story: Intel reaches 36.80 GPixel/s while AMD manages 23.20 GPixel/s, a difference of roughly 58.6% in the same direction. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with Intel at 73.60 GTexel/s compared to AMD's 46.40 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds complicate the picture slightly. The AMD Radeon 840M runs at a base clock of 400 MHz and boosts up to 2900 MHz, which is notably higher than the Intel part's 300 MHz base and 2300 MHz boost. Despite the higher clocks, the AMD GPU cannot overcome the Intel part's 2x advantage in shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. The FP16 comparison is more nuanced. The AMD Radeon 840M offers FP16 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not gain any throughput advantage from reduced precision. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, by contrast, provides 4.710 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, which is more than triple the AMD FP16 figure and indicates a more aggressive approach to mixed-precision workloads. In ray tracing, both parts carry 4 RT cores, so that aspect is evenly matched on paper. The overall picture from the specification data is that Intel holds a commanding lead in raw throughput metrics, while AMD counters with higher clock speeds and a more efficient process node.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS of FP32, compared to 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the AMD Radeon 840M. That gives Intel roughly a 58.6% advantage in single-precision compute.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare between the two parts?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a 400 MHz base clock and a 2900 MHz boost clock. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a 300 MHz base clock and a 2300 MHz boost clock. AMD runs at higher frequencies in both states.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The Intel part uses 512 shading units, exactly double the 256 shading units found on the AMD Radeon 840M. Intel also doubles TMUs to 32 versus 16 and ROPs to 16 versus 8.

Q: How do the two GPUs handle FP16 workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M provides FP16 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile provides 4.710 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, giving Intel a significant lead in reduced-precision compute.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API feature levels?

A: Yes. Both the AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither part has a listed advantage in API compatibility.

Q: What is the process technology difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The Intel node is smaller, though both are classified as IGP parts with system-shared memory.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two integrated GPUs is stark. AMD uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on the Krackan Point chip, part of the Navi III IGP generation. Intel counters with the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Panther Lake chip, from the Arc Graphics-M generation. The process nodes differ as well: AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 3 nm process from its own foundry. That smaller node gives Intel a potential density and efficiency advantage, though the database does not list transistor counts or die sizes for either part, so those factors cannot be quantified here.

The compute architecture diverges sharply in execution resources. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile packs 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the AMD Radeon 840M uses 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Every one of those resource counts is doubled on the Intel side. The ray tracing hardware is identical at 4 RT cores for each GPU, so that workload type sees no resource difference in the recorded data. The FP16 execution path differs in ratio as well, with AMD at 1:1 and Intel at 2:1, which indicates a fundamentally different approach to mixed-precision throughput. The Intel part also has a higher TDP of 25 W compared to AMD's 15 W, which reflects the larger execution resource pool and the higher power envelope needed to feed it.

Memory architecture is similar on both sides: both use system-shared memory with a system-shared bus width and system-dependent bandwidth. Neither part has dedicated VRAM, and both are classified as IGP with no power connectors. The bus interface differs, with AMD using PCIe 4.0 x8 and Intel simply listed as IGP. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for both, meaning the panel and video output configuration is determined by the host laptop rather than the GPU itself. Clock behavior also separates the two, with AMD running a 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost versus Intel's 300 MHz base and 2300 MHz boost. The higher boost clock on the AMD part partially compensates for its lower resource counts, but not enough to close the compute gap.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation in raw compute capability. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers higher throughput across every measured metric: FP32, FP16, pixel rate, and texture rate. It doubles the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs of the AMD Radeon 840M, and it does so within a 25 W TDP that is 10 W higher than AMD's 15 W envelope. The AMD part is not without advantages. It boosts to 2900 MHz versus Intel's 2300 MHz, it runs on a smaller 4 nm TSMC process versus Intel's 3 nm process, and it matches Intel on ray tracing cores and API support. For workloads that scale with clock speed rather than raw resource count, the AMD Radeon 840M may hold its own.

However, the specification data shows that the Intel part is the stronger performer on paper. A 58.6% lead in FP32 and a 58.6% lead in pixel rate are not marginal differences; they represent a full tier of separation in integrated graphics performance. The FP16 gap is even larger, with Intel at 4.710 TFLOPS versus AMD's 1,484.8 GFLOPS, a margin that exceeds 200%. For users who prioritize compute throughput in graphics or mixed-precision tasks, the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is the better pick based on the recorded data. For users who favor a lower power draw, higher clock speeds, and a smaller process node, the AMD Radeon 840M offers a more efficient alternative. Neither part has benchmark scores in the database, so these conclusions rest entirely on architectural specifications rather than measured frame rates or application tests.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows the following differences between the two GPUs. The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm Intel process. The AMD part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Both have 4 RT cores. The AMD base clock is 400 MHz with a 2900 MHz boost, while the Intel base clock is 300 MHz with a 2300 MHz boost. The AMD FP32 throughput is 1,484.8 GFLOPS with FP16 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Intel FP32 throughput is 2.355 TFLOPS with FP16 at 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1). The AMD pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s and texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s, while the Intel pixel rate is 36.80 GPixel/s and texture rate is 73.60 GTexel/s. TDP is 15 W for AMD and 25 W for Intel. The AMD part uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel part is listed as IGP. Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, both are IGP slot width with no power connectors, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. API support is identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ, with AMD on 2025-02-28 and Intel on 2026-01-26. Neither part has a listed launch MSRP, and neither has recorded benchmark scores in the database.