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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two GPUs contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 and Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile have separate database entries with no shared test runs, so a direct comparison of measured frame rates or composite scores is not available from the measurements.

What the database does show is the theoretical throughput ceiling for each part. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile delivers 1,382.4 GFLOPS, which converts to approximately 1.38 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at roughly 7.7 times the raw FP32 throughput of the Intel part. Texture rate tells a similar story: the RX 9050 reaches 166.4 GTexel/s against 43.20 GTexel/s for the Intel solution, a 3.85x advantage. Pixel throughput is more lopsided still, with the RX 9050 managing 166.4 GPixel/s versus 14.40 GPixel/s, an 11.6x gap.

Neither GPU has recorded benchmark scores or rival comparisons in the database. Both sit at the 50th percentile among all tracked GPUs, and both have an average benchmark score of zero, which reflects the absence of recorded test data rather than real-world performance. The wins counters for both parts are zero, meaning no benchmark category in the current database records a victory for either side.

The practical interpretation of the data is straightforward: the RX 9050 is engineered for a far higher workload ceiling. Its FP32, texture, and pixel rates all exceed the Intel part by wide margins, which points to a large performance gap in any compute or rendering task that scales with those resources. The Intel part, by contrast, is positioned at a much lower throughput tier, consistent with its integrated design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

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

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in texture fill rate?

A: The RX 9050 achieves 166.4 GTexel/s, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile achieves 43.20 GTexel/s. The AMD part is 3.85 times faster.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate difference?

A: The RX 9050 outputs 166.4 GPixel/s, versus 14.40 GPixel/s for the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile, a gap of 11.6 times.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 has 1,024 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has 384 shading units.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RX 9050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 9050 has a TDP of 92 W, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W, making the Intel part significantly more power-efficient on paper.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and use different architectures built for different roles. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 uses the Navi 44 chip with RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 29,700 million transistors on a 199 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 149.2M per mm². The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip with Xe-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The database does not record transistor count, die size, or transistor density for the Intel part.

The AMD chip is a discrete add-in card with a dual-slot cooler and a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it shares the system memory controller rather than using a dedicated PCIe connection. This is a fundamental architectural split: the RX 9050 has its own 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Ray tracing support also differs. The RX 9050 has 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile does not list any ray tracing cores in the database. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which means the RX 9050 meets the full feature set required for the latest DirectX 12 Ultimate titles. Both GPUs support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The RX 9050 belongs to the Navi IV (RX 9000) generation and succeeds the Navi III architecture. The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation and succeeds HD Graphics-M. The AMD chip was released on 2026-07-27, while the Intel chip was released on 2023-12-13, a gap of roughly two and a half years. Both parts are currently listed as active in production.

Specification Differences

The specification tables for the two GPUs show differences in nearly every category. The RX 9050 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The RX 9050 has 16 ray tracing cores; the Intel part has none listed.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The RX 9050 has a base clock of 1330 MHz, a boost clock of 2600 MHz, and a game clock of 1920 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1800 MHz, with no game clock recorded. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 9050 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the Intel part uses system shared memory with no dedicated memory clock.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The RX 9050 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses system shared memory, with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. This means the Intel part's memory performance depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration.

Power and physical design differ as well. The RX 9050 has a TDP of 92 W, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and is a dual-slot card with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel part has a TDP of 28 W, uses no external power connectors, and is an IGP with no suggested PSU requirement. Display outputs also differ: the RX 9050 provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a, while the Intel part's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The RX 9050 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface; the Intel part uses a Ring Bus.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 wins in every recorded compute and throughput metric. Its FP32 output of 10.65 TFLOPS dwarfs the Intel part's 1,382.4 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 166.4 GTexel/s is 3.85 times the Intel part's 43.20 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s is 11.6 times the Intel part's 14.40 GPixel/s. It has more than double the shading units, nearly triple the TMUs, and eight times the ROPs. It also has dedicated ray tracing hardware, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

The RX 9050 also wins on memory architecture. Its dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 pool with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable, consistent memory performance, whereas the Intel part relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. For workloads that saturate memory bandwidth, such as high-resolution texturing or large compute buffers, the RX 9050's dedicated memory is a clear advantage.

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile wins on power efficiency and integration. Its 28 W TDP is dramatically lower than the RX 9050's 92 W, which makes it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices. It requires no external power connector and no suggested PSU, and its Ring Bus interface means it does not need a PCIe slot. The RX 9050, by contrast, is a dual-slot card requiring a 250 W suggested PSU and a PCIe 5.0 x16 slot. The Intel part also launched earlier, in December 2023 versus July 2026 for the AMD part, which may matter for platform availability.

The use-case split is clear from the data. The RX 9050 is built for discrete graphics workloads where raw throughput, dedicated memory, and ray tracing matter. It suits desktop systems with room for a dual-slot card and a 250 W PSU. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is built for integrated scenarios where low power draw and a compact footprint take priority over raw performance. It suits portable devices where the 28 W TDP and system shared memory are acceptable trade-offs.

Neither part has recorded benchmark data in the database, so these conclusions rest on the architectural and specification differences rather than measured frame rates. Still, the throughput deltas are large enough that the ranking is not in question: the RX 9050 dominates on performance metrics, while the Intel part dominates on power and integration.