Intel Arc 130T Mobile vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc 130T Mobile or the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. Consequently, there are no wins recorded for either part, with both the winsA and winsB fields at zero. This absence of measured data means that direct performance comparisons must be derived from the specification sheets rather than from observed frame rates or compute workloads.

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile delivers a peak FP32 throughput of 3.942 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile reaches 1,280.0 GFLOPS, which is equivalent to 1.28 TFLOPS. The 130T therefore provides roughly three times the raw single-precision compute capacity of the 2 Xe part. In terms of texture processing, the 130T achieves 123.2 GTexel/s against 40.00 GTexel/s for the 2 Xe, a 3.08x advantage. Pixel throughput similarly favors the 130T at 61.60 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s, a 3.08x margin. These ratios are consistent across the board because the 130T has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 28 raster output units, while the 2 Xe has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The architectural scaling is nearly perfectly linear: 896 divided by 256 equals 3.5, yet the clock speed difference narrows the final ratio to approximately three.

The boost clock differs meaningfully. The Arc 130T Mobile boosts to 2200 MHz, while the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile boosts to 2500 MHz. The 2 Xe part operates at a 13.6% higher boost frequency, which partially compensates for its smaller execution resource pool. However, the sheer difference in execution units means the 130T retains a commanding lead in aggregate throughput. The FP16 performance shows a similar pattern: the 130T delivers 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) for the 2 Xe, a 3.08x gap that mirrors the FP32 ratio.

Both parts share a base clock of 300 MHz and rely on system shared memory, with bandwidth marked as system dependent. Neither has a dedicated memory bus width or memory size listed; both are system shared. The power envelopes differ, with the 130T rated at 35 W and the 2 Xe rated at 25 W. The higher power budget of the 130T aligns with its larger execution array and higher throughput figures.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile reaches 3.942 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile reaches 1,280.0 GFLOPS FP32. The 130T is approximately 3.08x faster in single-precision compute.

Q: Do these GPUs use the same architecture?

A: No. The Arc 130T Mobile uses Xe-LPG+ architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm Intel process.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: Both GPUs use system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. Neither has dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has 7 ray tracing cores, whereas the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 2 ray tracing cores.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The Arc 130T Mobile boosts to 2200 MHz, while the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile boosts to 2500 MHz. The 2 Xe part has a higher boost clock by 300 MHz.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The Arc 130T Mobile is rated at 35 W, and the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is rated at 25 W.

Architecture Differences

The two mobile GPUs belong to different architectural generations and process nodes. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile is built on the Xe-LPG+ architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation, and is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture, belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel. The process node difference is substantial: 5 nm versus 3 nm, which typically implies higher transistor density and improved power efficiency for the newer part, although the database does not list transistor counts or die sizes for either GPU.

The execution resource counts diverge sharply. The 130T packs 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, 28 ROPs, and 7 ray tracing cores. The 2 Xe part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. The 130T has 3.5x the shading units, 3.5x the TMUs, 3.5x the ROPs, and 3.5x the ray tracing cores. This consistent 3.5x ratio across all execution units indicates a straightforward scaling of the core design rather than a rebalanced configuration.

The base clocks are identical at 300 MHz. The boost clocks differ, with the 130T reaching 2200 MHz and the 2 Xe reaching 2500 MHz. The higher boost clock on the 2 Xe partially offsets its smaller resource pool but cannot close the throughput gap. The FP32 output per shading unit per clock can be derived from the data: the 130T produces 3.942 TFLOPS from 896 units at 2200 MHz, while the 2 Xe produces 1,280.0 GFLOPS from 256 units at 2500 MHz. The per-unit efficiency is similar, confirming that the architectural difference lies primarily in scale rather than in per-unit capability.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither lists tensor cores, and both are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with a bus interface of IGP. The display outputs are marked as portable device dependent for both. The 2 Xe part has no power connectors listed as "None", while the 130T has a null entry for power connectors; both are IGP parts and draw power from the host system.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several specification fields. The process node is 5 nm for the 130T and 3 nm for the 2 Xe. The foundry is TSMC for the 130T and Intel for the 2 Xe. The architecture is Xe-LPG+ for the 130T and Xe3-LPG for the 2 Xe. The chip is Arrow Lake-H for the 130T and Wildcat Lake for the 2 Xe. The generation is Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) for the 130T and Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) for the 2 Xe.

The boost clock is 2200 MHz for the 130T and 2500 MHz for the 2 Xe. The shading units are 896 versus 256. The TMUs are 56 versus 16. The ROPs are 28 versus 8. The ray tracing cores are 7 versus 2. The pixel rate is 61.60 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 40.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 3.942 TFLOPS versus 1,280.0 GFLOPS. The FP16 throughput is 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1). The TDP is 35 W versus 25 W.

The release dates differ: the 130T was released on 2025-01-12, and the 2 Xe was released on 2026-04-15. Both have the same predecessor, HD Graphics-M, and neither has a listed successor. Both are marked as active in production status. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database. The base clock, memory configuration, API support, slot width, bus interface, and display outputs are identical between the two parts.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile dominates in every measured throughput category: FP32 compute is 3.08x higher, texture rate is 3.08x higher, pixel rate is 3.08x higher, and ray tracing core count is 3.5x higher. The 130T also carries a higher TDP of 35 W versus 25 W, reflecting its larger execution array. For workloads that depend on raw shading, texturing, or rasterization throughput, the 130T is the stronger part by a wide margin.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile counters with a higher boost clock of 2500 MHz versus 2200 MHz, a smaller process node of 3 nm versus 5 nm, and a later release date of 2026-04-15 versus 2025-01-12. The newer process node and higher clock suggest better power efficiency per unit of work, but the database does not provide efficiency metrics beyond TDP. The 2 Xe part consumes 10 W less power, which may be relevant for thermally constrained portable devices.

The 130T is the appropriate choice for applications that maximize the use of execution units, such as gaming at higher resolutions, compute workloads, or ray-traced rendering. The 2 Xe is the appropriate choice for designs where power draw is the primary constraint and where the higher boost clock can be leveraged in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks. The 3.5x difference in shading units and ray tracing cores is not offset by the 13.6% boost clock advantage of the 2 Xe.

Both GPUs share the same API feature set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so software compatibility is equivalent. The memory subsystem is identical in configuration, both being system shared with system dependent bandwidth. The decisive factors are execution resources and power budget. The 130T wins on raw performance; the 2 Xe wins on efficiency-oriented specifications. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores in the database, so the verdict rests entirely on the specification analysis.