Intel Arc 140T Mobile vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core specifications of the Intel Arc 140T Mobile and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile is based on the Arrow Lake-H chip with Xe-LPG+ architecture on a 5 nm process, featuring 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Twin Lake chip with Xe-LP architecture on a 10 nm process, featuring 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, with no RT cores.

Q: What are the clock speeds for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2350 MHz. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile also has a base clock of 300 MHz but a much lower boost clock of 1000 MHz.

Q: How do the power requirements differ between the two?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile has a TDP of 35 W, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W. This indicates a substantial difference in thermal and power design targets.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which is a lower feature level.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each part?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile delivers 75.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 150.4 GTexel/s texture rate. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 4.000 GPixel/s and 12.00 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the production status and release timing for each?

A: Both GPUs are listed as Active production status. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile was released on 2025-01-12, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile was released on 2024-12-31.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a clear split in intended workloads between the two integrated GPUs. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile is designed for performance-oriented mobile computing. Its 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs give it a substantial computational advantage. The FP32 throughput of 4.813 TFLOPS, compared to 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, indicates a roughly 12.5x advantage in raw shader arithmetic. This makes the Arc 140T the choice for graphics-intensive applications, including modern 3D titles with ray tracing, given its 8 RT cores.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, by contrast, is positioned for efficiency-focused, low-power systems. Its 6 W TDP, versus 35 W for the Arc 140T, allows it to fit into fanless or passively cooled designs where thermal headroom is minimal. The 24EU part uses the Xe-LP architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, which aligns with low-cost, low-power processors like Twin Lake. Its boost clock of 1000 MHz, while lower than the Arc 140T's 2350 MHz, is sufficient for basic display output, video playback, and light 2D workloads.

The bus interface also highlights the positioning difference. The Arc 140T uses an IGP bus interface, typical of higher-performance integrated graphics on a dedicated chiplet or die. The Graphics 24EU uses a Ring Bus interface, which is a simpler, lower-bandwidth connection suited to entry-level parts. In practice, benchmark results indicate the Arc 140T wins in every compute and rendering metric available in the database, while the 24EU wins in power efficiency and thermal simplicity. There are no recorded head-to-head benchmark wins for either part, as the head-to-head array is empty, but the specification data alone establishes the Arc 140T as the faster GPU.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different Intel graphics generations and architectures. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile is part of the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation and uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is part of the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation and uses the older Xe-LP architecture. This architectural gap explains several downstream differences.

The Xe-LPG+ architecture in the Arc 140T supports hardware ray tracing through 8 dedicated RT cores. The Xe-LP architecture in the 24EU has no RT cores at all. This means the Arc 140T can handle DirectX Raytracing workloads, while the 24EU cannot. The DirectX feature level also differs: the Arc 140T supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like variable rate shading and mesh shaders. The 24EU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which lacks some of these advanced features.

The process node is another major architectural divider. The Arc 140T is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the 24EU is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The smaller process node allows the Arc 140T to pack 1024 shading units into a 35 W power envelope, whereas the 24EU uses 192 shading units within a 6 W envelope. The foundry difference also indicates distinct design and manufacturing pipelines.

The memory subsystems are both system shared, meaning neither GPU has dedicated VRAM. Bandwidth is listed as system dependent for both. This is typical for integrated graphics. However, the Arc 140T's much higher shading unit count, TMU count, and ROP count give it a far greater ability to consume and process memory bandwidth once available.

The predecessor field also differs. The Arc 140T lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor, while the 24EU has no predecessor listed. This suggests the Arc 140T is part of a lineage of mobile graphics parts, while the 24EU represents a fresh entry in the Twin Lake generation.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows substantial differences across nearly every measurable field. The shading unit count is the most dramatic: 1024 for the Arc 140T versus 192 for the 24EU. This is a 5.33x difference. The TMU count is 64 versus 12, a 5.33x difference as well. The ROP count is 32 versus 4, an 8x difference. These ratios directly affect pixel and texture throughput.

The pixel rate is 75.20 GPixel/s for the Arc 140T versus 4.000 GPixel/s for the 24EU, an 18.8x difference. The texture rate is 150.4 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s, a 12.53x difference. FP32 compute is 4.813 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS, a 12.53x difference. FP16 compute follows the same 2:1 ratio for both: 9.626 TFLOPS for the Arc 140T and 768.0 GFLOPS for the 24EU.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The base clock is identical at 300 MHz for both. The boost clock is 2350 MHz for the Arc 140T and 1000 MHz for the 24EU, a 2.35x difference. This boost clock gap amplifies the already large execution unit advantage.

Power consumption differs by a factor of 5.83x: 35 W for the Arc 140T versus 6 W for the 24EU. Both are integrated graphics with an IGP slot width for the Arc 140T, while the 24EU uses a Ring Bus interface. The process node is 5 nm for the Arc 140T and 10 nm for the 24EU. The foundry is TSMC for the Arc 140T and Intel for the 24EU.

API support is similar for OpenGL (4.6 both) and Vulkan (1.4 both), but DirectX differs: 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the Arc 140T and 12 (12_1) for the 24EU. Release dates are close: 2025-01-12 for the Arc 140T and 2024-12-31 for the 24EU. The Arc 140T has a listed predecessor (HD Graphics-M), while the 24EU does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array in the database is empty, and neither part has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals. The wins counters are both zero. This means no direct comparative benchmark data exists in the database for these two GPUs. However, the specification-level derived throughput values provide a basis for quantitative comparison.

The largest single advantage for the Intel Arc 140T Mobile is in pixel fill rate. The recorded 75.20 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s for the 24EU represents an 18.8x advantage. This is driven by the combination of 32 ROPs versus 4 ROPs and the higher boost clock of 2350 MHz versus 1000 MHz. In practical terms, the Arc 140T can fill framebuffers at a much higher rate, which directly benefits high-resolution rendering and multi-sample anti-aliasing.

Texture rate shows a 12.53x advantage: 150.4 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. This comes from 64 TMUs versus 12 TMUs, combined with the clock advantage. Games and applications that are texture-bound, such as those using heavy normal mapping or anisotropic filtering, would see significant gains on the Arc 140T.

FP32 compute follows the same 12.53x ratio: 4.813 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. This is the raw shader arithmetic throughput, relevant for general-purpose compute, physics simulation, and shader complexity. The 24EU's 384.0 GFLOPS places it in the entry-level range, while the Arc 140T approaches dedicated mobile GPU territory.

FP16 throughput is 9.626 TFLOPS for the Arc 140T and 768.0 GFLOPS for the 24EU, again a 12.53x difference. Both maintain a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, indicating no dedicated half-rate or full-rate FP16 path difference between the two architectures.

The RT core count is an all-or-nothing differentiator: 8 RT cores for the Arc 140T and none for the 24EU. This is not a scalar ratio but a feature presence difference. Any ray-traced workload, whether in games or professional visualization, runs exclusively on the Arc 140T.

The TDP difference of 35 W versus 6 W is the one area where the 24EU has a clear advantage. The lower power draw enables deployment in thermally constrained devices. The Arc 140T's 35 W envelope is still modest for a GPU with 1024 shading units, but it requires active cooling in most chassis.

Both parts share a base clock of 300 MHz, which suggests similar idle behavior. The boost clock difference of 2350 MHz versus 1000 MHz indicates the Arc 140T has far more headroom under load. The database shows no recorded wins for either part in head-to-head tests, so the specification-derived deltas above serve as the primary quantitative comparison. The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both, indicating median positioning within the database's overall distribution, though this is based on an average benchmark score of 0 for both parts.