AMD Radeon PRO W7900D vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The AMD part is a professional workstation accelerator built around the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Intel part is a low-power integrated graphics solution on the Twin Lake chip with Xe-LP architecture. The database shows no shared benchmark scores, no head-to-head wins for either side, and no nearest rivals for either product. The verdict, therefore, rests entirely on the architectural and specification differences captured in the data.

The Radeon PRO W7900D is the clear choice for any workload requiring massive compute throughput, high memory bandwidth, or dedicated ray tracing hardware. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is suited exclusively for basic display output and light 2D tasks on portable devices, where its 6 W power envelope and integrated design are the deciding factors. The data shows a 52.99 TFLOPS FP32 capability for the AMD part against 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 for the Intel part, a difference of roughly 138 times in raw floating-point throughput. No benchmark results exist to suggest any overlap in practical performance.

Architecture Differences

The two products diverge at every level of the architecture. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, containing 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 109.1M per mm². The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Twin Lake chip built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown in the database.

The AMD architecture is RDNA 3.0 with the codename Plum Bonito, belonging to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The Intel architecture is Xe-LP, belonging to the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation. The AMD part implements 6,144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 192 render output units, and 96 ray tracing cores. The Intel part implements 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and no ray tracing cores at all.

Clock behavior also differs sharply. The AMD part has a base clock of 1327 MHz and a boost clock of 2156 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The AMD memory clock runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed, while the Intel part uses system shared memory with no dedicated memory clock. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between these two products, no wins for either side, and no average benchmark scores. The comparison must be built from the recorded specification data, which is extensive for the AMD part and limited for the Intel part.

The largest gap appears in FP32 throughput. The Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. Converting the Intel figure to TFLOPS gives 0.384 TFLOPS, which places the AMD part approximately 138 times ahead. The FP16 comparison shows the AMD part at 52.99 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part again leads by a massive margin.

Memory bandwidth shows a similarly wide separation. The AMD part has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, producing 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The AMD part achieves a pixel rate of 414.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 827.9 GTexel/s. The Intel part achieves 4.000 GPixel/s and 12.00 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is roughly 103.5 times, and the texture rate gap is roughly 69 times.

The power envelopes confirm the intended roles. The AMD part has a TDP of 295 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU with two 8-pin power connectors. The Intel part has a TDP of 6 W and is an integrated graphics processor with no external power connectors. The AMD part occupies a triple-slot form factor with dimensions of 280 mm length, 110 mm height, and 51 mm width. The Intel part is an IGP with no recorded dimensions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS FP32, making the AMD part roughly 138 times faster in FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile support ray tracing?

A: No. The database lists 96 ray tracing cores for the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D and no ray tracing cores for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has a 295 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU and two 8-pin connectors. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a 6 W TDP and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Are both GPUs currently in production?

A: Yes. The database lists both the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile with a production status of Active.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D wins in every performance category recorded in the database. Compute-intensive workloads benefit from 6,144 shading units and 52.99 TFLOPS FP32. Memory-heavy tasks benefit from 48 GB of GDDR6 and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. Ray-traced rendering benefits from 96 dedicated ray tracing cores. The pixel rate of 414.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 827.9 GTexel/s indicate strong fill-rate capabilities for high-resolution output. The triple-slot cooler and 295 W TDP suggest sustained operation under load, and the three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs plus one mini-DisplayPort 2.1 support multi-monitor professional setups.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. The 6 W TDP is dramatically lower than the 295 W TDP of the AMD part. The IGP form factor requires no additional board space or power delivery components. The ring bus interface ties directly into the host processor. System shared memory eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM. The 300 MHz base clock and 1000 MHz boost clock keep thermal output minimal. The 192 shading units and 4 ROPs are sufficient for basic display output and lightweight graphical interfaces on portable devices. The 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio gives it a modest edge in half-precision workloads relative to its own FP32 capability.

The release dates in the database place the Intel part earlier at 2024-12-31 and the AMD part later at 2025-09-24. Both remain active in production. The AMD part lists the Radeon Pro Vega as its predecessor, while the Intel part has no recorded predecessor.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in every field where the database records a value for both. The process node differs: 5 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. The foundry differs: TSMC for AMD versus Intel for Intel. The transistor count is 57,700 million for AMD and unknown for Intel. The die size is 529 mm² for AMD and unknown for Intel.

The clock speeds differ: base 1327 MHz versus 300 MHz, boost 2156 MHz versus 1000 MHz. The AMD part has a dedicated memory clock of 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed; the Intel part uses system shared memory. Memory size is 48 GB GDDR6 versus system shared. Bus width is 384 bit versus system shared. Bandwidth is 864.0 GB/s versus system dependent.

The compute units differ: 6,144 shading units versus 192, 384 TMUs versus 12, 192 ROPs versus 4. Ray tracing cores are 96 for AMD and absent for Intel. Pixel rate is 414.0 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 827.9 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 52.99 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. FP16 is 52.99 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical design differ: TDP 295 W versus 6 W, triple-slot versus IGP, two 8-pin connectors versus none, 600 W suggested PSU versus none. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus ring bus. Display outputs are 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 versus portable device dependent. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). Dimensions are recorded for the AMD part at 280 mm by 110 mm by 51 mm, while the Intel part has no recorded dimensions. The AMD part has a release date of 2025-09-24, while the Intel part has a release date of 2024-12-31.