AMD Radeon RX 7400 vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two parts sharply by use case, and the split is not subtle. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 is a discrete, fully equipped graphics processor with a dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is an integrated solution that shares system memory and runs at a fraction of the power envelope. The recorded results show that the RX 7400 dominates every workload where raw rendering throughput matters, while the Intel part wins in the narrow niche where power draw and integration are the priority.

The RX 7400 carries a PassMark G3D score of 11897, which places it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs in the database. That percentile figure signals a product that sits above the low end but below the midrange, yet even this modest standing utterly eclipses the Intel part, which has no recorded benchmark scores at all in the database. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile returns an average benchmark score of zero because no entries exist for it, while the RX 7400 averages 2467 across all recorded tests.

For compute workloads, the RX 7400 posts a PassMark GPU Compute score of 5152. The Intel part has no comparable figure recorded. For legacy DirectX paths, the RX 7400 scores 176 in DirectX 9, 97 in DirectX 11, 59 in DirectX 10, and 44 in DirectX 12. The Intel part again has no numbers to compare. The only category where the Intel chip wins is power consumption, where it draws 6 W compared to the RX 7400's 43 W, and physical footprint, where it is an IGP rather than a dual-slot card.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward: the RX 7400 is for anyone who needs actual graphics performance, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is for devices where the GPU must cost almost nothing in power and space. There is no benchmark category where the Intel part beats the AMD part, because the Intel part has no recorded scores. The wins column shows 0 for each side in head-to-head tests, but that reflects missing data, not parity.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries, different process nodes, and fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It is manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process and packs 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Twin Lake chip built on Xe-LP architecture, manufactured by Intel on a 10 nm process. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The RX 7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The AMD chip's FP32 throughput is 16.49 TFLOPS, while the Intel chip manages 384.0 GFLOPS, a ratio of roughly 43 to 1. FP16 performance follows the same pattern: 32.97 TFLOPS for AMD versus 768.0 GFLOPS for Intel, both quoted at a 2:1 rate.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The RX 7400 uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 18 Gbps effective speed. The Intel part uses System Shared memory, meaning it borrows from the host system's RAM, with bus width and bandwidth both described as System Dependent. Clock speeds also differ sharply. The AMD chip runs at a base of 1452 MHz, a game clock of 2200 MHz, and a boost of 2300 MHz, with memory clocked at 2250 MHz. The Intel chip runs at a base of 300 MHz and boosts to 1000 MHz.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the resource gap. The RX 7400 achieves 147.2 GPixel/s and 257.6 GTexel/s. The Intel part achieves 4.000 GPixel/s and 12.00 GTexel/s. The AMD chip supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, while the Intel chip supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, a lower tier that omits some of the latest rendering features. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Physical and electrical characteristics reinforce the architectural divide. The RX 7400 draws 43 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, uses a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 200 W power supply. It connects via PCIe 4.0 x8 and offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Intel part draws 6 W, is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and uses a Ring Bus interface. Its display outputs are described as Portable Device Dependent. The AMD chip releases in August 2025, while the Intel chip has an active production status and a release date of December 2024.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two parts, so a test-by-test comparison must rely on the individual recorded scores for the RX 7400 and the absence of any for the Intel chip. The most informative comparison comes from the PassMark G3D score, where the RX 7400 records 11897. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has no G3D score in the database, so the AMD part leads by an unquantified but effectively total margin.

The RX 7400's nearest rivals in the database provide context for where this chip actually sits. Its average benchmark score of 2467 sits just 1.1% above the AMD Radeon 8040S at 2440, 1.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce 710M at 2433, 1.8% above the Intel HD Graphics 610 at 2425, and 1.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M at 2422. That cluster of rivals, all within roughly two percent of each other, indicates that the RX 7400 is not a high-flying part. It is a low-end discrete GPU that edges out a set of similarly modest competitors by a hair.

The percentile ranking of 17 places the RX 7400 below the vast majority of GPUs in the database. In practical terms, this means the chip will handle older or lighter workloads but will struggle with modern high-end titles at demanding settings. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, with a 50th percentile ranking despite having no benchmark scores, appears in the database as a midpoint placeholder, but its actual performance cannot be validated from recorded data.

The DirectX 9 score of 176 for the RX 7400 is its strongest legacy result, while the DirectX 12 score of 44 is its weakest. That pattern suggests the chip's architecture favors older API paths, possibly due to driver maturity or the specific workload characteristics of those tests. The compute score of 5152 is roughly 43 percent of the G3D score, which is a typical ratio for a chip with a strong FP32 pipeline. The G2D score of 1209 is comparatively low, indicating that 2D desktop workloads do not stress this GPU heavily.

For the Intel part, the absence of benchmark data means every comparison is one-sided. The recorded data shows the RX 7400 delivering 16.49 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 288.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 257.6 GTexel/s of texture throughput. The Intel chip offers 384.0 GFLOPS, system-shared memory with dependent bandwidth, and 12.00 GTexel/s. In every measurable performance metric, the AMD chip leads by at least an order of magnitude.

FAQ

Q: How does the RX 7400 compare to its closest rivals in the database?

A: The RX 7400 has an average benchmark score of 2467, which is 1.1% above the AMD Radeon 8040S at 2440, 1.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce 710M at 2433, 1.8% above the Intel HD Graphics 610 at 2425, and 1.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M at 2422. These are the four closest entries in the database.

Q: Does the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed. The RX 7400, by contrast, has eight recorded benchmark scores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two parts?

A: The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W and requires a dual-slot cooler with a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 200 W power supply. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W, is an IGP with no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which part supports ray tracing?

A: The RX 7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile lists no ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The RX 7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 18 Gbps effective speed. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth.

Q: What are the release dates for each part?

A: The RX 7400 has a release date of August 7, 2025. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a release date of December 31, 2024, and its production status is listed as Active.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for performance: the AMD Radeon RX 7400 is the superior graphics processor in every measurable way. It delivers 16.49 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 288.0 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth, 257.6 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 147.2 GPixel/s of pixel throughput. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS, system-shared memory, 12.00 GTexel/s, and 4.000 GPixel/s. The RX 7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel chip has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs.

The RX 7400 also holds the edge in software support, with DirectX 12 Ultimate at feature level 12_2 versus the Intel part's DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the AMD chip adds ray tracing hardware that the Intel part lacks.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile does have one clear advantage: power efficiency and integration. At 6 W versus 43 W, it consumes roughly one-seventh the power. It is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, making it suitable for portable devices where space and battery life take priority over rendering performance. Its display outputs are described as Portable Device Dependent, confirming its intended role in compact systems.

The RX 7400's 17th percentile ranking across all GPUs indicates it is not a high-end part, and its nearest rivals are all low-end chips within roughly two percent of its average score. But that position is still vastly ahead of an integrated GPU with no recorded benchmarks. For anyone who needs to run 3D workloads, process compute tasks, or play games, the RX 7400 is the only viable choice from this comparison. For anyone who needs a GPU that costs almost nothing in power and physical space, the Intel part serves that role, but it offers no performance validation in the database. The choice is not between two competing graphics solutions; it is between a discrete GPU with measurable performance and an integrated GPU with none.