AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for both integrated graphics parts shows no direct head-to-head benchmark scores, so the comparison must rely on the architectural and specification measurements available in the database. The AMD Radeon 840M, built on a 4 nm process from TSMC, delivers a peak FP32 throughput of 1,484.8 GFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm node, reaches 1,382.4 GFLOPS. That difference places the AMD part roughly 7.4% ahead in raw single-precision compute, a meaningful margin for shader-bound workloads but not a decisive one.

The pixel and texture rates tell a more nuanced story. The Radeon 840M achieves 23.20 GPixel/s, which is 61.1% higher than the Intel part's 14.40 GPixel/s. In texture fill, the AMD GPU posts 46.40 GTexel/s versus 43.20 GTexel/s for the Intel Arc, a smaller 7.4% advantage. The pixel rate gap is substantial because the Radeon 840M operates at a much higher boost clock of 2900 MHz compared to 1800 MHz on the Intel side, and both parts have 8 ROPs. The Intel GPU counters with more shading units (384 versus 256), more TMUs (24 versus 16), and a higher base FP16 throughput, but those advantages do not translate into rasterization wins at the measured rates.

In FP16 compute, the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile reaches 2.765 TFLOPS using a 2:1 rate, while the AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. This means the Intel part is roughly 86% ahead in half-precision throughput, a significant edge for workloads that can use packed math. However, the AMD GPU's FP32 and FP16 rates are identical, indicating no packing penalty, whereas the Intel architecture trades precision for speed in FP16.

The clock speed difference is another major differentiator. The Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost of 2900 MHz, while the Intel Arc starts at 300 MHz and boosts to 1800 MHz. The AMD boost clock is 61.1% higher, which directly feeds its superior pixel rate and helps close the gap in texture rate despite having fewer TMUs. The Intel part's higher TDP of 28 W versus 15 W for the AMD part suggests it can sustain higher power draw, but the data shows the AMD design achieves better rasterization efficiency per watt based on the recorded rates.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, and neither has any recorded average benchmark score or nearest rivals. This makes the comparison purely specification-driven, but the numbers that exist are sufficient to identify clear performance contours.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M wins decisively in pixel fill rate, posting 23.20 GPixel/s against 14.40 GPixel/s for the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile. That 61.1% advantage matters for resolution-heavy rendering, especially in games or applications that push large numbers of filled pixels per frame. The higher boost clock of 2900 MHz versus 1800 MHz is the primary driver, and the AMD part also leads in FP32 compute at 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 1,382.4 GFLOPS, a 7.4% margin. For traditional rasterized gaming at lower resolutions where pixel throughput is the bottleneck, the Radeon 840M has the clear edge.

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile counters with a strong FP16 performance lead. At 2.765 TFLOPS, it is 86% ahead of the AMD GPU's 1,484.8 GFLOPS in half-precision workloads. This makes the Intel part more suitable for compute tasks that leverage FP16 acceleration, such as certain AI inference or image processing pipelines, provided the software can use packed math. The Intel GPU also has more shading units (384 versus 256) and more TMUs (24 versus 16), which gives it a theoretical advantage in geometry-heavy and texture-heavy shader work, even though its measured texture rate is slightly lower at 43.20 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s.

The Intel part's higher TDP of 28 W, compared to 15 W for the AMD GPU, indicates it is designed for a higher power envelope. This may translate into more sustained performance in systems with adequate cooling, but the database does not include sustained benchmark data to confirm that. The AMD GPU, with its lower TDP and smaller process node, appears more power-efficient on paper, though efficiency figures are not directly recorded.

For API support, the AMD Radeon 840M lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile lists DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part's DirectX 12 Ultimate designation includes features like hardware ray tracing, and the Radeon 840M has 4 dedicated RT cores, whereas the Intel part has no recorded RT cores. This gives the AMD GPU a structural advantage in ray-traced workloads, even though no ray tracing benchmarks are present in the data.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon 840M as the stronger choice for conventional graphics workloads. Its 61.1% higher pixel rate, 7.4% higher FP32 throughput, and 7.4% higher texture rate, combined with a 61.1% higher boost clock, make it the more capable rasterizer. The presence of 4 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support further cements its position for modern gaming features, assuming the software uses those capabilities.

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is the better option when FP16 compute is the priority. Its 86% lead in half-precision throughput and larger shader and TMU counts give it a niche in compute-oriented tasks. The higher 28 W TDP suggests it may hold performance better under sustained load in a properly cooled chassis, but the recorded data does not confirm this with benchmarks.

For a typical laptop buyer or PC builder looking at integrated graphics for everyday gaming and general use, the AMD Radeon 840M delivers better raw rasterization numbers and a more feature-complete DirectX 12 Ultimate API. The Intel part serves specific compute needs, particularly FP16-heavy workloads, but its lower pixel rate and clock speeds put it behind in most standard graphics scenarios.

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 Graphics 48EU Mobile boosts to 1800 MHz, a 61.1% difference.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which is 7.4% higher than the Intel Arc's 1,382.4 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile support hardware ray tracing?

A: No, the database lists no RT cores for the Intel part, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 4 RT cores.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has 384 shading units, compared to 256 on the AMD Radeon 840M.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W, and the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support Vulkan 1.4?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile list Vulkan 1.4 support in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation, and uses the Krackan Point chip. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation, with a 10 nm process from Intel. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 10 nm, which affects transistor density and power efficiency, though exact transistor counts are not recorded for either part.

The AMD GPU features 4 RT cores, while the Intel part has none recorded. This is a structural architectural difference: the RDNA 3.5 design includes dedicated ray tracing hardware, whereas the Xe-LPG architecture in this configuration does not list any. The AMD part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features such as mesh shaders and variable rate shading, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a slightly less feature-complete API level. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The shading unit counts differ: the AMD part has 256 shading units, while the Intel part has 384. TMUs also differ, with 16 on the AMD side and 24 on the Intel side. The ROP count is the same at 8 for both. The FP16 compute ratio is a key architectural divergence: the AMD Radeon 840M runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning no packed throughput advantage, while the Intel Arc runs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its half-precision throughput to 2.765 TFLOPS.

The bus interface also differs. The AMD Radeon 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses a Ring Bus interface. This reflects different integration approaches: the AMD part connects through a standard PCIe link, while the Intel part uses a ring bus for its system integration.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M and Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile differ in several recorded specifications. The process node is 4 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. The base clock is 400 MHz for AMD and 300 MHz for Intel. The boost clock is 2900 MHz for AMD and 1800 MHz for Intel. The FP32 compute is 1,484.8 GFLOPS for AMD versus 1,382.4 GFLOPS for Intel. The FP16 compute is 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) for AMD versus 2.765 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel.

The pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s for AMD versus 14.40 GPixel/s for Intel. The texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s for AMD versus 43.20 GTexel/s for Intel. Shading units are 256 for AMD versus 384 for Intel. TMUs are 16 for AMD versus 24 for Intel. ROPs are the same at 8 for both. The AMD part has 4 RT cores, while the Intel part has none recorded. The TDP is 15 W for AMD versus 28 W for Intel.

The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD versus Ring Bus for Intel. The DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) for AMD versus 12 (12_1) for Intel. The release date is 2025-02-28 for AMD versus 2023-12-13 for Intel. The predecessor is Navi II IGP for AMD versus HD Graphics-M for Intel. The power connector is listed as "None" for AMD and is not recorded for Intel. Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, and both have display outputs listed as portable device dependent. The production status for both is Active.