AMD Steam Machine GPU vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Steam Machine GPU and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. The benchmark arrays for both entries are empty, and the wins counters for each side register zero. This absence of comparative measurement data means the quantitative relationship between these two parts must be derived entirely from their listed specification sheets rather than from executed workloads.

What the data does provide is a stark numerical contrast across nearly every measurable hardware dimension. The AMD Steam Machine GPU lists a peak FP32 throughput of 17.56 TFLOPS, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile records 384.0 GFLOPS. Expressed as a ratio, the AMD part delivers approximately 45.7 times the single-precision compute throughput of the Intel graphics solution. The pixel rate differential is similarly extreme: the AMD GPU manages 156.8 GPixel/s against 4.000 GPixel/s for the Intel part, a 39.2x gap. Texture fill rates show 274.4 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s, meaning the AMD component sustains roughly 22.9 times the texel throughput.

Memory bandwidth presents one of the most decisive separations. The AMD Steam Machine GPU accesses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory across a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile relies on System Shared memory with bandwidth listed as System Dependent, which in practical terms places its available throughput far below the dedicated GDDR6 implementation. The AMD part also runs its memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate, a figure the Intel entry cannot match since its memory clock is not independently specified.

Clock speeds reinforce the compute gap. The AMD GPU has a base clock of 1720 MHz, a game clock of 2250 MHz, and a boost clock of 2450 MHz. The Intel part operates with a 300 MHz base and a 1000 MHz boost. Even at its maximum boost state, the Intel graphics unit runs at less than half the AMD part's base frequency. The AMD GPU's game clock alone exceeds the Intel boost clock by 1250 MHz.

Shader resource counts follow the same trajectory. The AMD Steam Machine GPU contains 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile lists 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The AMD part therefore carries 9.3 times the shading units, 9.3 times the TMUs, and 16 times the ROPs. Additionally, the AMD GPU features 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel entry records no ray tracing hardware at all.

The Verdict

The data positions these two products in entirely different performance classes. The AMD Steam Machine GPU, built on the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, targets a console-class gaming workload with dedicated graphics memory and discrete hardware resources. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, using the Twin Lake chip with Xe-LP architecture, functions as an integrated graphics processor designed for low-power portable devices. The 110 W TDP of the AMD part against the 6 W TDP of the Intel unit makes the intended usage contexts unambiguous.

For any workload involving 3D rendering, high-resolution gaming, or compute-intensive graphical tasks, the recorded specifications indicate the AMD Steam Machine GPU holds an overwhelming advantage. Its 17.56 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 288.0 GB/s dedicated bandwidth, and ray tracing support place it in a category the Intel integrated solution cannot approach. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, with 384.0 GFLOPS and system-shared memory, suits basic display output, video playback, and lightweight 2D workloads where power consumption matters more than raw throughput.

The percentile rankings offer no further differentiation, as both entries register at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs with an average benchmark score of zero. The database currently holds no measured performance data for either product, so the percentile values represent default placeholders rather than derived rankings. The specification sheet remains the only reliable basis for comparison.

A user requiring a discrete GPU for a gaming console or similar high-performance application would select the AMD Steam Machine GPU based on every measurable metric. A system designer prioritizing minimal power draw, integrated form factor, and portable device compatibility would find the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile appropriate. The 104 W difference in TDP alone separates their deployment scenarios more than any single benchmark could.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Steam Machine GPU in raw compute performance?

A: The AMD part lists 17.56 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile lists 384.0 GFLOPS. The AMD GPU delivers approximately 45.7 times the single-precision compute throughput.

Q: What memory configuration does each product use?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. The AMD Steam Machine GPU includes 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile lists no ray tracing cores in its specifications.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU has a TDP of 110 W. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W.

Q: Which API features do the two products support?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, meaning the AMD part carries the higher DirectX feature level.

Q: What are the production statuses and release dates?

A: Both products are listed as Active in production. The AMD Steam Machine GPU has a release date of 2026-06-28, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a release date of 2024-12-31.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD Steam Machine GPU uses the Navi 33 chip built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, containing 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die with a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Twin Lake chip on a 10 nm process at Intel, with transistor count, die size, and transistor density all listed as unknown or null.

Clock specifications diverge substantially. The AMD part lists base 1720 MHz, boost 2450 MHz, game 2250 MHz, and memory 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The Intel part lists base 300 MHz and boost 1000 MHz, with no game clock and memory listed as System Shared.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The AMD GPU has 8 GB GDDR6, 128-bit bus width, and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel GPU has System Shared memory, System Shared type, System Shared bus width, and System Dependent bandwidth.

Compute unit counts show major gaps. The AMD part has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. Pixel rate measures 156.8 GPixel/s for AMD versus 4.000 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate measures 274.4 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 17.56 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. FP16 throughput is 17.56 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio for AMD versus 768.0 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio for Intel.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The AMD GPU has a 110 W TDP, no power connectors required, and dimensions of 156 mm length, 152 mm height, and 162 mm width. The Intel GPU has a 6 W TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, uses a Ring Bus interface, and lists no dimensions. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1 for AMD, versus Portable Device Dependent for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Steam Machine GPU implements RDNA 3.0 architecture under the codename Hotpink Bonefish, belonging to the Console GPU (Valve) generation. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile implements Xe-LP architecture under the Twin Lake chip, belonging to the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation. These architectural lineages target different design philosophies: RDNA 3.0 focuses on high-throughput gaming and compute workloads, while Xe-LP emphasizes power efficiency for integrated mobile graphics.

Manufacturing processes differ fundamentally. AMD uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process at its own foundry. This process difference contributes to the transistor count disparity: 13,300 million for the Navi 33 chip versus an unknown count for Twin Lake. The AMD die measures 204 mm², while the Intel die size is not recorded. The resulting transistor density of 65.2M per mm² for AMD contrasts with no recorded density for Intel.

Memory architecture separates the two at a fundamental level. The AMD GPU integrates dedicated GDDR6 memory with its own 128-bit bus, providing deterministic 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel GPU shares system memory with no dedicated bus width or bandwidth specification, making its memory performance dependent on the host platform. This architectural choice reflects the discrete versus integrated design split.

Compute feature sets differ in ray tracing capability. The AMD GPU includes 28 dedicated ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads. The Intel GPU records no ray tracing cores, indicating reliance on software-based approaches or the absence of this feature entirely. The DirectX support levels reflect this: AMD lists 12 Ultimate (12_2) while Intel lists 12 (12_1), with the Ultimate tier including ray tracing and mesh shader requirements.

FP16 execution ratios also differ. The AMD GPU achieves FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning identical throughput for both precisions at 17.56 TFLOPS. The Intel GPU achieves FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 against 384.0 GFLOPS FP32. This indicates different ALU designs for handling reduced-precision arithmetic.

Power delivery architecture differs as well. The AMD GPU requires no external power connectors despite its 110 W TDP, suggesting it draws power through its slot or connector implementation. The Intel GPU as an IGP draws power through the host processor's power delivery system, with its 6 W TDP representing a fraction of the AMD part's consumption. The AMD GPU also carries its own display outputs (HDMI 2.1a and DisplayPort 2.1), while the Intel GPU's display outputs depend entirely on the portable device implementation.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Steam Machine GPU wins in every performance-oriented category recorded in the database. Its 17.56 TFLOPS FP32 throughput enables compute-heavy workloads such as real-time 3D rendering, physics simulation, and machine learning inference at scales the Intel part cannot approach. The 288.0 GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth supports high-resolution textures, large frame buffers, and bandwidth-intensive post-processing effects. The 28 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced lighting and reflections, a feature entirely absent from the Intel GPU. The 110 W TDP budget allows sustained high clock operation at 2250 MHz game clock and 2450 MHz boost, translating to consistent frame delivery in demanding scenarios.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration flexibility. Its 6 W TDP represents roughly one-eighteenth of the AMD GPU's power budget, making it suitable for fanless designs, compact portable devices, and battery-constrained systems. The Ring Bus interface and system-shared memory architecture eliminate the need for dedicated memory components, reducing board complexity and enabling integration directly into low-power processors. The 300 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost clocks indicate the part prioritizes minimal energy draw over peak performance, appropriate for idle desktop environments, document processing, and video playback where the AMD GPU's power requirements would be excessive.

The FP16 2:1 ratio on the Intel part, delivering 768.0 GFLOPS, suggests its Xe-LP architecture can handle reduced-precision workloads at twice the FP32 rate, a feature useful for certain lightweight AI inference tasks despite the low absolute throughput. The AMD part's 1:1 FP16 ratio at 17.56 TFLOPS still vastly exceeds this in absolute terms, but the Intel implementation shows architectural attention to efficiency-oriented compute patterns.

The discrete versus integrated form factor determines deployment scenarios. The AMD Steam Machine GPU, with its 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm dimensions and dedicated display outputs, fits into console-class hardware or full-size expansion slots. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, with no recorded dimensions and portable-device-dependent outputs, embeds into system-on-chip designs where the AMD part would be physically incompatible. The production status for both is Active, indicating both remain available for their respective markets.

The release date gap of roughly 18 months (2024-12-31 for Intel versus 2026-06-28 for AMD) places the Intel part in an earlier generation timeframe, though the architectural differences make direct generational comparison less meaningful than the performance class separation. The database records no benchmark scores for either product, so the specification analysis stands as the sole quantitative basis for the comparison.