Intel Arc 130V Mobile vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The data separates these two Intel mobile graphics processors into entirely different performance classes. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile, built on the Lunar Lake chip with Xe2-LPG architecture, delivers substantially higher compute throughput, pixel rates, and texture rates than the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. The Arc 130V reaches a boost clock of 1850 MHz, while the Graphics 24EU tops out at 1000 MHz. In shading units, the Arc 130V carries 896 versus 192 for the Graphics 24EU. The recorded data shows the Arc 130V producing 3.315 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 384.0 GFLOPS for the Graphics 24EU, a difference of roughly 8.6 times. For any application relying on integrated graphics muscle, the Arc 130V is the clear choice. The Graphics 24EU, with its 6 W TDP and 10 nm process, suits extremely low-power portable devices where minimal graphics demands exist. The Arc 130V carries a 37 W TDP, so it belongs in systems with more thermal headroom. The database indicates no benchmark scores or nearest rivals for either part, so the analysis rests on architectural specifications and rated throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different Intel generations and foundries. The Arc 130V uses the Lunar Lake chip, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The Graphics 24EU uses the Twin Lake chip, built on Intel's 10 nm node. The Arc 130V employs the Xe2-LPG architecture, while the Graphics 24EU relies on the older Xe-LP design. The Arc 130V belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) generation, and the Graphics 24EU belongs to the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation. The Arc 130V has a die size of 172 mm²; the Graphics 24EU lists an unknown die size.

The execution resource counts differ sharply. The Arc 130V contains 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 28 raster output units. The Graphics 24EU contains 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The Arc 130V also includes 7 ray tracing cores, while the Graphics 24EU has none. Neither part lists tensor cores. The Arc 130V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Graphics 24EU supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface differs: the Arc 130V uses IGP, and the Graphics 24EU uses a Ring Bus.

Clock behavior also diverges. Both start at a 300 MHz base clock. The Arc 130V boosts to 1850 MHz; the Graphics 24EU boosts to 1000 MHz. Memory on both is System Shared, with system-dependent bandwidth. The power envelopes are 37 W for the Arc 130V and 6 W for the Graphics 24EU. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Arc 130V released on 2024-09-23, and the Graphics 24EU released on 2024-12-31. The Arc 130V lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor; the Graphics 24EU has no predecessor listed. Both remain in Active production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc 130V wins decisively in raw throughput metrics. Its pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s dwarfs the Graphics 24EU's 4.000 GPixel/s. The texture rate of 103.6 GTexel/s for the Arc 130V compares to 12.00 GTexel/s for the Graphics 24EU. FP32 compute of 3.315 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS and FP16 compute of 6.630 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS give the Arc 130V a massive lead in any compute-oriented workload. The Arc 130V's 7 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the Graphics 24EU. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support on the Arc 130V adds features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading that the Graphics 24EU's DirectX 12 (12_1) cannot access.

The Graphics 24EU wins in power efficiency and integration simplicity. Its 6 W TDP is a fraction of the Arc 130V's 37 W, making it suitable for fanless or ultra-low-power designs. The Ring Bus interface may integrate more simply in certain Twin Lake platforms. The 10 nm Intel process, while older than the 3 nm TSMC node, does not carry the same thermal demands. For basic display output, video playback, and light 2D workloads, the Graphics 24EU's 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute and 4.000 GPixel/s pixel rate suffice. The Arc 130V's higher throughput comes with a substantially larger power budget, so it wins in performance-per-second but loses in performance-per-watt when considering the raw TDP figures.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has 896 shading units, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has 192 shading units.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Arc 130V boosts to 1850 MHz, and the Graphics 24EU boosts to 1000 MHz. Both have a 300 MHz base clock.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: The Arc 130V includes 7 ray tracing cores. The Graphics 24EU has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures?

A: The Arc 130V delivers 3.315 TFLOPS, and the Graphics 24EU delivers 384.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has the lower power draw?

A: The Graphics 24EU has a 6 W TDP, compared to the Arc 130V's 37 W TDP.

Q: What DirectX versions do they support?

A: The Arc 130V supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), and the Graphics 24EU supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two parts, and neither has an average benchmark score or nearest rivals. The comparison therefore relies on the rated specifications. The Arc 130V's FP32 compute of 3.315 TFLOPS is 8.6 times the Graphics 24EU's 384.0 GFLOPS. The FP16 figures show a similar ratio: 6.630 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS, also 8.6 times. Pixel rate favors the Arc 130V by a factor of 12.95: 51.80 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the Arc 130V by a factor of 8.63: 103.6 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s.

The shading unit count of 896 versus 192 gives the Arc 130V a 4.67 times advantage. The TMU count of 56 versus 12 is a 4.67 times difference. The ROP count of 28 versus 4 is a 7 times difference. The boost clock of 1850 MHz versus 1000 MHz is a 1.85 times advantage, though the Arc 130V's superior architecture and larger execution resources amplify that clock advantage. The ray tracing cores on the Arc 130V provide a feature-level win with no equivalent on the Graphics 24EU.

The power difference is stark: 37 W versus 6 W. The Arc 130V consumes 6.17 times the TDP of the Graphics 24EU. When dividing the FP32 throughput by TDP, the Graphics 24EU delivers 64.0 GFLOPS per watt, and the Arc 130V delivers 89.6 GFLOPS per watt. The Arc 130V is more efficient in raw compute per watt despite its larger absolute power draw. The process node difference explains some of this: 3 nm TSMC versus 10 nm Intel. The die size of 172 mm² for the Arc 130V indicates a much larger physical implementation than the unknown die of the Graphics 24EU.

Both GPUs share the same base clock, memory architecture (System Shared), and display output strategy (Portable Device Dependent). Neither has a launch MSRP in the database. The Arc 130V's release date of 2024-09-23 predates the Graphics 24EU's 2024-12-31 by roughly three months. The Arc 130V lists HD Graphics-M as a predecessor, while the Graphics 24EU has no predecessor. Both are active production parts.

The practical implications from the data: the Arc 130V targets devices that need meaningful 3D rendering, hardware ray tracing, and DirectX 12 Ultimate features, all within a 37 W envelope. The Graphics 24EU targets devices where the 6 W TDP and minimal compute (384.0 GFLOPS) are sufficient for basic graphics output. The 7 ray tracing cores on the Arc 130V enable effects that the Graphics 24EU cannot attempt. The pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s supports higher-resolution displays and more complex compositing than the 4.000 GPixel/s of the Graphics 24EU.

The database percentile for both is 50, indicating median standing among all GPUs, but with no benchmark scores recorded, that percentile reflects the specification-based ranking. The absence of nearest rivals for either part means no direct competitive deltas exist. The Arc 130V's 6.630 TFLOPS of FP16 compute with a 2:1 ratio indicates strong half-precision performance, useful for AI inference and certain graphics workloads. The Graphics 24EU's 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 at the same 2:1 ratio is proportionally weaker. The texture rate of 103.6 GTexel/s on the Arc 130V supports high-detail texture filtering, while the 12.00 GTexel/s on the Graphics 24EU limits texture-heavy scenes.

The bus interface difference (IGP versus Ring Bus) may affect memory latency and bandwidth in real systems, though both use System Shared memory. The 12_2 versus 12_1 DirectX difference grants the Arc 130V access to the latest graphics API feature set. The 28 ROPs on the Arc 130V versus 4 on the Graphics 24EU directly impacts fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution rendering. The 56 TMUs on the Arc 130V versus 12 on the Graphics 24EU affects anisotropic filtering and texture fetch throughput.

The data does not include game clocks, power connectors, suggested PSU, or physical dimensions for either part. Both are IGPs, so those fields are largely irrelevant. The production status of Active for both means they are current products in the database. The Arc 130V's 37 W TDP places it in the upper range of integrated graphics, while the Graphics 24EU's 6 W TDP makes it one of the lowest-power options. The 3 nm process for the Arc 130V versus 10 nm for the Graphics 24EU explains the density and efficiency advantage of the newer part. The 172 mm² die size for the Arc 130V, despite the advanced node, indicates a large GPU with substantial execution resources.