AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM vs Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM or the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile. Both entries carry an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark comparison table is empty. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, meaning neither unit has a measured performance footprint in the database yet. What can be analyzed is the theoretical compute and rendering throughput derived from their architectural specifications, which differ dramatically.

The AMD part delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel mobile integrated solution reaches 1,382.4 GFLOPS, or roughly 1.38 TFLOPS. That places the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM at approximately 7.7 times the raw FP32 throughput of the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile. Pixel fill rates tell a similar story: the AMD GPU outputs 166.4 GPixel/s versus the Intel part's 14.40 GPixel/s, a margin of over 11.5 times. Texture rate is 166.4 GTexel/s for the AMD card, compared to 43.20 GTexel/s for the Intel mobile graphics, a ratio of about 3.85 times.

Memory bandwidth is one of the largest separators. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile relies on system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent, so there is no fixed figure to compare directly. The AMD memory clock runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective transfer. The Intel part has no dedicated memory clock because it shares system memory.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The AMD GPU has a base clock of 1330 MHz, a game clock of 1920 MHz, and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The Intel mobile part operates at a 300 MHz base and 1800 MHz boost. The AMD boost clock is 44% higher than the Intel boost, and the base clock is over four times higher. These clock differences compound the shading unit count advantage: 1024 shading units on the AMD side versus 384 on the Intel side.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM wins in every category where a numerical comparison is possible. It has more shading units (1024 versus 384), more texture mapping units (64 versus 24), more raster output units (64 versus 8), and dedicated ray tracing cores (16 versus none listed). Its FP32 throughput is roughly 7.7 times higher. Its pixel rate is over 11 times higher. Its texture rate is nearly four times higher. Its memory subsystem is dedicated GDDR6 rather than shared system memory, providing a fixed 144.0 GB/s rather than a system dependent figure.

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. Its thermal design power is 28 W, versus 92 W for the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM. That makes the Intel part roughly one-third the power draw of the AMD solution. The Intel part is an IGP, meaning it is integrated into the processor package, whereas the AMD part is a dual-slot discrete card requiring a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU. For thin-and-light mobile systems where battery life and thermal limits dominate, the Intel part's low power envelope is a clear advantage. The AMD card also has no listed launch MSRP, so no price comparison can be made.

The AMD part wins on API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_1) on the Intel part. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface. The AMD card has explicit display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a), while the Intel part lists display outputs as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, using the Navi 44 chip. It is part of the Radeon RX 9000 series and the Navi IV (RX 9000) generation. The process node is 4 nm, fabricated by TSMC. The die contains 29,700 million transistors on a 199 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 149.2 million per square millimeter. The predecessor architecture is Navi III. The release date is recorded as 2026-07-27.

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture, based on the Meteor Lake chip. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation. The process node is 10 nm, fabricated by Intel. No transistor count, die size, or transistor density figures are recorded in the database. The predecessor is HD Graphics-M. The release date is 2023-12-13.

The AMD architecture uses a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, meaning both operate at 10.65 TFLOPS. The Intel architecture uses a 2:1 ratio, with FP16 at 2.765 TFLOPS and FP32 at 1,382.4 GFLOPS. This indicates the AMD part treats FP16 and FP32 as equal throughput, while the Intel part halves FP32 throughput relative to FP16. The AMD part has 16 dedicated ray tracing cores; the Intel part lists none. The AMD part also includes 64 ROPs versus 8 on the Intel part, a major difference for rasterization-heavy workloads.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. The AMD part uses dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and fixed bandwidth. The Intel part shares system memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system shared or system dependent. This means the Intel part's performance scales with the host system's memory configuration, while the AMD part has deterministic memory performance.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in almost every measurable specification. Process node: 4 nm (AMD) versus 10 nm (Intel). Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Transistors: 29,700 million versus not recorded. Die size: 199 mm² versus not recorded. Transistor density: 149.2M per mm² versus not recorded. Base clock: 1330 MHz versus 300 MHz. Boost clock: 2600 MHz versus 1800 MHz. Game clock: 1920 MHz versus not recorded. Memory clock: 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective versus system shared.

Memory size: 4 GB GDDR6 versus system shared. Memory bus width: 64 bit versus system shared. Memory bandwidth: 144.0 GB/s versus system dependent. Shading units: 1024 versus 384. TMUs: 64 versus 24. ROPs: 64 versus 8. RT cores: 16 versus not recorded. Pixel rate: 166.4 GPixel/s versus 14.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 166.4 GTexel/s versus 43.20 GTexel/s. FP32: 10.65 TFLOPS versus 1,382.4 GFLOPS. FP16: 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 2.765 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 92 W versus 28 W.

Slot width: dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus none recorded. Suggested PSU: 250 W versus none recorded. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a versus portable device dependent. DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Production status is active for both. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile delivers 1,382.4 GFLOPS. The AMD part is approximately 7.7 times higher.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The AMD part uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so there is no fixed bandwidth figure recorded.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM has a TDP of 92 W, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W. The Intel part consumes roughly one-third the power of the AMD part.

Q: Do both support ray tracing?

A: The AMD part has 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Intel part lists no ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: Which supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Are both GPUs currently in production?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM and the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile have an active production status in the database.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM is a discrete, dual-slot graphics card with dedicated GDDR6 memory, 16 ray tracing cores, and roughly 7.7 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part. It targets systems that can accommodate a 92 W card with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and explicit HDMI 2.1b and DisplayPort 2.1a outputs make it suitable for desktop or larger mobile chassis where connectivity and fixed memory bandwidth matter.

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is an integrated GPU with a 28 W TDP and no separate memory, using system shared resources. It is built for portability and low power draw. Its FP16 throughput of 2.765 TFLOPS exceeds its FP32 figure due to the 2:1 ratio, but that does not offset the massive gap in raw rasterization and compute performance. The Intel part has no recorded ray tracing cores, no dedicated display outputs, and no fixed memory bandwidth.

For users selecting a GPU based purely on the recorded specifications, the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM is the stronger performer in every measured category. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is the only choice for ultra-low-power integrated scenarios where a discrete card is not physically or thermally viable. The database records no benchmark scores for either product, so the percentile ranking of 50 for both reflects the absence of measured data rather than parity in real-world performance. The specification gap is wide enough that any future benchmark results are unlikely to close the compute, pixel, and texture throughput margins.