AMD Radeon 860M vs Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M holds the decisive advantage in measured benchmark performance. The database records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043 for the AMD part, placing it at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 26,401 positions it directly alongside discrete mobile GPUs from the prior generation. The nearest rivals in the database, the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at 26,421 (0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary at 26,553 (0.6% ahead), are separated from the 860M by margins that fall within run-to-run variance. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 sits 1.1% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 trails the 860M by 0.3%. This clustering indicates the 860M operates in a performance tier normally occupied by dedicated graphics solutions, not integrated graphics.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile presents a different profile. The database contains no completed benchmark entries for this part, and its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. Its percentile rating of 50 places it at the median of the GPU distribution, but without measured scores, the practical interpretation is that the Intel part has no verified performance data in this database. The 860M wins both recorded benchmark disciplines by default, and the architectural gap between the two parts is substantial.

For use cases that depend on raw compute throughput, the AMD part is the clear choice. The 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and an identical 3.072 TFLOPS of FP16 performance on a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part delivers 588.8 GFLOPS of FP32 and 1,177.6 GFLOPS of FP16 on a 2:1 ratio. The FP32 discrepancy is roughly a factor of 5.2 in favor of AMD. For any workload that relies on single-precision floating-point math, the 860M is categorically faster.

The Intel part does hold one structural advantage: power consumption. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is rated at 25 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon 860M is rated at 15 W TDP. This means the AMD part delivers its substantially higher performance within a 10 W lower power envelope. The AMD part achieves more than five times the FP32 throughput while drawing 40% less power according to the TDP figures. For thermally constrained mobile designs, the AMD part offers the superior performance-per-watt profile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26,401. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, resulting in an average score of zero.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 860M is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (0.3% ahead). The NVIDIA RTX A4000 is 1.1% ahead.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures for both GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a boost clock of 2300 MHz.

Q: What process nodes do the two GPUs use?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process from Intel.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each part?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M is rated at 15 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is rated at 25 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 860M and the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and the win counts for both parts are zero. This absence of direct comparisons is notable because the two parts do not share a common benchmark data point in this database.

However, the individual benchmark entries for the AMD part provide a reference point. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and the Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043 constitute the only measured performance data available for either GPU. The Intel part has no entries in either test. The Vulkan score exceeds the OpenCL score by 32%, which suggests the RDNA 3.5 architecture in the AMD part responds well to the Vulkan API's explicit control model.

The nearest rival data for the AMD part adds context. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550, a discrete mobile GPU, averages 26,421, which is 0.1% above the 860M's average of 26,401. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, a desktop-class part, averages 26,553, 0.6% above the 860M. The NVIDIA RTX A4000, a professional workstation GPU, averages 26,683, 1.1% above the 860M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 averages 26,331, 0.3% below the 860M. These four rivals bracket the 860M within a 1.4% total spread, from 26,331 to 26,683. This tight clustering indicates that the 860M's integrated design performs at a level indistinguishable from these discrete and professional parts in the aggregate.

The Intel part has no rival data to analyze. Its percentile rating of 50 indicates a median position, but the lack of measured scores means the database cannot verify its actual performance tier. The architectural specifications suggest the gap is large: the AMD part has 512 shading units against Intel's 128, a 4x difference in raw shader count. The texture rate differential is even larger, with AMD at 96.00 GTexel/s against Intel's 18.40 GTexel/s, a 5.2x difference. The pixel rate differential is 48.00 GPixel/s against 9.200 GPixel/s, a 5.2x difference. These ratios align closely with the FP32 ratio, indicating that the AMD part scales its entire rendering pipeline proportionally.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm TSMC process; the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm Intel process. The AMD part has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The AMD boost clock is 30.4% higher than the Intel boost clock.

The shading unit count differs by a factor of 4. The AMD part has 512 shading units; the Intel part has 128. The texture mapping units follow the same ratio: 32 for AMD versus 8 for Intel. The render output units differ by a factor of 4 as well: 16 for AMD versus 4 for Intel. The ray tracing core count is 8 for AMD versus 1 for Intel.

The compute rates reflect these structural differences. The AMD part achieves a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The Intel part achieves a pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 18.40 GTexel/s. The FP32 figure is 3.072 TFLOPS for AMD and 588.8 GFLOPS for Intel. The FP16 figure is 3.072 TFLOPS for AMD on a 1:1 ratio and 1,177.6 GFLOPS for Intel on a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part maintains a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the Intel part halves its FP16 throughput relative to FP32.

The TDP ratings differ by 10 W. The AMD part is rated at 15 W; the Intel part is rated at 25 W. The bus interface differs as well: the AMD part uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel part is listed as IGP. Both parts use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Both parts have no power connectors and are classified as IGP slot width. Both parts list display outputs as portable device dependent.

The release dates differ by more than a year. The AMD Radeon 860M launched on 2025-02-28. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile launched on 2026-04-15. The AMD part's predecessor is the Navi II IGP; the Intel part's predecessor is the HD Graphics-M. Both parts are currently listed as active in production.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 860M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The chip is designated Krackan Point. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation for Wildcat Lake. The chip is designated Wildcat Lake.

The RDNA 3.5 architecture in the AMD part uses a 4 nm TSMC process. The Xe3-LPG architecture in the Intel part uses a 3 nm Intel process. The foundry difference is significant: TSMC for AMD, Intel for Intel. Both parts have unknown transistor counts and die sizes in the database.

The compute architecture differs fundamentally in execution resource allocation. The AMD part allocates 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with 8 ray tracing cores. The Intel part allocates 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, with 1 ray tracing core. The AMD part's 4x advantage in each execution resource category produces a corresponding 5.2x advantage in FP32, texture rate, and pixel rate.

The FP16 execution model differs between the two architectures. The AMD part executes FP16 at the same rate as FP32, a 1:1 ratio, meaning the 3.072 TFLOPS figure applies to both. The Intel part executes FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput of 1,177.6 GFLOPS is double its FP32 throughput of 588.8 GFLOPS. For workloads that use FP16 arithmetic, the AMD part still leads by a factor of 2.6, but the Intel architecture's ratio advantage narrows the gap relative to FP32 workloads.

The API support is identical for both parts. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The ray tracing hardware differs in count but both architectures include dedicated ray tracing cores. The AMD part has 8, the Intel part has 1.

The power architecture differs in both TDP and clock behavior. The AMD part runs at a 15 W TDP with a 600 MHz base clock and a 3000 MHz boost clock. The Intel part runs at a 25 W TDP with a 300 MHz base clock and a 2300 MHz boost clock. The AMD part's boost clock is 30.4% higher than the Intel part's, while its TDP is 40% lower. The AMD part's base clock is exactly double the Intel part's base clock.

The memory architecture is conceptually similar: both parts use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Neither part has dedicated VRAM, a dedicated memory bus width, or a dedicated memory type. The bus interface differs, with the AMD part using PCIe 4.0 x8 and the Intel part listed as IGP. Both parts are IGP slot width with no power connectors.

The generation naming reflects different product lineages. The AMD part belongs to the Navi III IGP generation within the Strix Point Mobile family. The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation within the Wildcat Lake family. The AMD predecessor is Navi II IGP; the Intel predecessor is HD Graphics-M. The release cadence places the AMD part in early 2025 and the Intel part in mid-2026, a gap of approximately 14 months.