AMD Radeon 860M vs Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile Comparison

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 860M and Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile represent two fundamentally different approaches to integrated graphics. The Radeon 860M is built on AMD's RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation within the Strix Point Mobile family. The chip itself is designated Krackan Point. In contrast, the Intel solution uses the Xe-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process, and is part of the Arc Graphics-M generation based on the Meteor Lake chip.

Process technology separates these two significantly. AMD's 4 nm node from TSMC allows for denser transistor packing and lower power draw per unit of work. Intel's 10 nm process is older and less refined, which contributes to the substantial difference in thermal design power: the Radeon 860M is rated at 15 W, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile draws 65 W. That 50 W gap is the single largest architectural differentiator, as it dictates where each chip can be deployed and how much sustained performance is possible.

The compute resources also differ markedly. The Radeon 860M fields 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature set that aligns with its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) API support. The Intel part offers more raw units: 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. However, the Intel architecture does not list any ray tracing cores, and its DirectX support is capped at 12 (12_1), not the Ultimate tier. This means the AMD chip supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing and the full feature set of DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the Intel chip cannot claim that capability.

Clock speeds further differentiate the two. The Radeon 860M runs at a base clock of 600 MHz and boosts to 3000 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile starts at 300 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz. The AMD part's 800 MHz higher boost clock partially compensates for its lower unit count, though not entirely, as the raw throughput figures show.

Memory architecture is identical in concept: both use System Shared memory, meaning they draw from the host system's RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. Bus width and bandwidth are likewise System Dependent for both, and memory type is System Shared for both. This puts both parts on equal footing regarding memory bottlenecks, though system configuration will ultimately determine real-world memory performance.

The bus interface differs. AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, a standard external interconnect. Intel uses a Ring Bus, which is an internal fabric connecting the GPU to the rest of the Meteor Lake chip. This architectural choice affects how quickly the GPU can access memory and communicate with the CPU, though the database does not quantify the performance impact.

Both parts are classified as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width of IGP, and both have display outputs that are Portable Device Dependent, meaning they are designed for laptops and mobile devices. The Radeon 860M uses no power connectors, while the Intel part's power connector status is not listed. Both are currently Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which integrated GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile delivers 3.942 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the AMD Radeon 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS. Intel also leads in FP16 with 7.885 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while AMD offers 3.072 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: How do the texture and pixel fill rates compare?

A: Intel leads in both categories. The Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile achieves 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate and 52.80 GPixel/s pixel rate. The Radeon 860M posts 96.00 GTexel/s and 48.00 GPixel/s respectively.

Q: Does either GPU support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, but only the AMD Radeon 860M lists dedicated ray tracing cores (8 of them). Its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support includes the full ray tracing feature set. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile does not list any ray tracing cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What are the power requirements for each chip?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is rated at 65 W TDP. This represents a substantial difference in thermal and power budgets, favoring AMD for thin-and-light designs.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M boosts to 3000 MHz with a 600 MHz base clock. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile boosts to 2200 MHz with a 300 MHz base clock. AMD's boost clock is 800 MHz higher.

Q: What are the release dates for these products?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M was released on 2025-02-28. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile was released earlier, on 2023-12-13.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon 860M but does not include any benchmark entries for the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile. This means a direct head-to-head comparison using measured scores is only partially possible. The Radeon 860M has two recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL at 22759 and Geekbench Vulkan at 30043. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 26401. The Intel part has no recorded benchmark scores, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0. Likewise, the head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts for both parts are zero.

Without Intel's measured scores, the comparison relies on architectural specifications rather than direct test results. The Intel part's FP32 throughput of 3.942 TFLOPS is 28.3% higher than AMD's 3.072 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s is 28.3% higher than AMD's 96.00 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s is 10.0% higher than AMD's 48.00 GPixel/s. These are mathematically derived deltas from the recorded specification data, not from benchmark runs.

The AMD Radeon 860M's recorded average benchmark score of 26401 places it at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, according to the recorded data, include the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 with an average score of 26421, a delta of -0.1% relative to the Radeon 860M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26331, a delta of 0.3%. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26553, a delta of -0.6%. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26683, a delta of -1.1%. These deltas indicate that the Radeon 860M sits within 1.1% of four distinct rivals, spanning from a mobile entry-level discrete GPU (MX550) to a desktop workstation card (RTX A4000). This clustering suggests the Radeon 860M's performance is highly competitive with low-end discrete GPUs, despite being an integrated solution.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has no recorded rivals and no percentile ranking beyond the 50th percentile overall. Its average benchmark score of 0 indicates that no benchmark data has been collected or recorded for this part in the database. This absence of data prevents any definitive statement about its real-world performance relative to the Radeon 860M or any other GPU.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear split between these two integrated GPUs based on intended use and design priorities. The AMD Radeon 860M is the more efficient and feature-complete option. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained mobile devices, and its 8 ray tracing cores combined with DirectX 12 Ultimate support position it for modern gaming workloads that use ray tracing and advanced rendering features. Its recorded benchmark score of 26401, at the 72nd percentile, places it in striking distance of discrete GPUs like the GeForce MX550 and RTX 5060, with deltas under 1.1% in either direction.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile offers higher raw throughput on paper. Its 3.942 TFLOPS FP32 and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the Radeon 860M's corresponding figures by roughly 28%. Its 896 shading units and 56 TMUs give it a theoretical advantage in fill-rate-bound workloads. However, the 65 W TDP is more than four times the AMD part's power draw, which limits its deployment to larger laptops with robust cooling solutions. The lack of recorded benchmark data means the database cannot confirm whether that theoretical advantage translates into real-world performance gains. The absence of ray tracing cores and the lower DirectX feature level (12_1 instead of 12 Ultimate) also narrow its feature set for modern games.

For users prioritizing efficiency, portability, and modern API features, the database points to the AMD Radeon 860M. Its lower power draw, higher boost clock (3000 MHz versus 2200 MHz), and dedicated ray tracing hardware make it the more versatile integrated GPU, particularly for thin-and-light laptops. Its measured performance at the 72nd percentile, with rivals within 1.1%, indicates it can handle a range of workloads without a discrete GPU.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput and fill rates, and who have the power budget to sustain a 65 W TDP, the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile presents a compelling specification sheet. The 28% advantage in FP32 and texture rate is substantial, and the 10% pixel rate lead is notable. However, the absence of recorded benchmark scores means the database cannot validate these specifications against actual test results. The Intel part also lacks ray tracing support and the DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, which may matter for forward-looking software titles.

The data does not declare a single winner. The AMD part wins on efficiency, features, and measured results. The Intel part wins on raw specifications and theoretical throughput. The choice between them depends on the platform constraints and workload priorities of the target device.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon 860M and Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile:

• Chip: Krackan Point versus Meteor Lake
• Architecture: RDNA 3.5 versus Xe-LPG
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) versus Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake)
• Process Node: 4 nm versus 10 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Base Clock: 600 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 3000 MHz versus 2200 MHz
• Shading Units: 512 versus 896
• Texture Mapping Units: 32 versus 56
• Raster Operation Pipelines: 16 versus 24
• Ray Tracing Cores: 8 versus not listed
• Pixel Rate: 48.00 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 96.00 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 3.072 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 15 W versus 65 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus Ring Bus
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1)
• Release Date: 2025-02-28 versus 2023-12-13
• Predecessor: Navi II IGP versus HD Graphics-M
• Average Benchmark Score: 26401 versus 0
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 72 versus 50
• Nearest Rivals: 4 recorded versus none recorded

Fields that are identical or not specified for either part include memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth (all System Shared or System Dependent), power connectors (None for AMD, not listed for Intel), suggested PSU (not listed for either), slot width (IGP for both), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent for both), OpenGL and Vulkan versions (4.6 and 1.4 for both), and production status (Active for both).