Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark entries for either Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile or Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile. Both parts show an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs, meaning neither has accumulated measurable performance data in the current records. This absence of recorded scores means every comparison below derives strictly from the architectural and specification fields in the database, not from run-to-run testing.

The dominant mathematical story is raw throughput. Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile delivers 3.942 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS. That places the 112EU part at roughly 6.7 times the FP32 throughput of the 1 Xe part. In FP16, the 112EU reaches 7.885 TFLOPS versus 1,177.6 GFLOPS for the 1 Xe, again a factor near 6.7. The 112EU also leads in pixel throughput with 52.80 GPixel/s against 9.200 GPixel/s, a 5.7 times advantage, and in texture throughput with 123.2 GTexel/s against 18.40 GTexel/s, a 6.7 times advantage. These are not close margins; they represent entirely different performance tiers.

Clock speeds partially offset the gap. The 1 Xe boosts to 2300 MHz, slightly higher than the 112EU's 2200 MHz boost. But the 112EU compensates with far more execution resources: 896 shading units versus 128, 56 texture mapping units versus 8, and 24 ROPs versus 4. The 112EU also carries 24 ROPs, six times the 1 Xe's four, which explains the pixel rate difference. The 1 Xe's higher boost clock does not overcome a 7x shader count deficit, so every throughput metric in the database favors the 112EU by a wide margin.

The 1 Xe does hold one functional advantage in the API stack. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the 112EU lists DirectX 12 (12_1). Both parts support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The 1 Xe also explicitly lists one ray tracing core, while the 112EU's ray tracing capability is not recorded in the database. For applications that require DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the 1 Xe is the only one of the two that formally meets that specification level.

Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP, so no price-based comparison is possible from the data. Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, so memory performance cannot be quantified beyond that shared design.

The Verdict

The data separates these two cleanly by workload ambition. Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is the substantially faster part in every measured throughput category. Its 3.942 TFLOPS FP32, 52.80 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate place it far ahead of the 1 Xe's 588.8 GFLOPS, 9.200 GPixel/s, and 18.40 GTexel/s. For any task where raw graphics compute matters, rasterization throughput, pixel fill, texture sampling, the 112EU wins by a factor of roughly six or better.

Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is the lower-power, lower-feature part. Its 25 W TDP against the 112EU's 65 W TDP makes it the more conservative choice for thermally constrained systems. Its 2300 MHz boost clock is also 100 MHz higher than the 112EU's 2200 MHz, which offers a small per-clock efficiency advantage, but the 1 Xe's 128 shading units cannot translate that clock advantage into competitive absolute performance.

The 1 Xe wins decisively on API feature level. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support and an explicitly listed ray tracing core give it capabilities the 112EU does not formally match in the database, which lists the 112EU at DirectX 12 (12_1) with no ray tracing core recorded. Buyers who need mesh shaders, variable rate shading, or other 12_2 features must choose the 1 Xe, regardless of its lower throughput.

The 112EU is the pick for general 3D rendering, gaming, and any GPU-bound workload where raw performance is the priority. The 1 Xe is the pick for lightweight systems, basic display output, and scenarios where DirectX 12 Ultimate compliance is a hard requirement. The two parts do not compete for the same socket or thermal envelope, so the choice is less about preference and more about system design constraints.

Architecture Differences

Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip with Xe-LPG architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The 1 Xe belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation, while the 112EU belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation. Both share the same predecessor, HD Graphics-M, and both are listed as Active production parts.

The 1 Xe is a much smaller implementation: 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 1 ray tracing core. The 112EU scales up to 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with no ray tracing core count recorded. Shader count scales in a 7:1 ratio, TMUs in a 7:1 ratio, and ROPs in a 6:1 ratio. The 112EU's 65 W TDP reflects that larger execution array, while the 1 Xe's 25 W TDP reflects its minimal footprint.

The process node difference is significant: 3 nm for the 1 Xe versus 10 nm for the 112EU. The newer node allows the 1 Xe to reach 2300 MHz boost with only 25 W, while the 112EU needs 65 W for a 2200 MHz boost. Transistor counts and die sizes are not recorded for either part, so no density comparison is possible.

Memory architecture is identical in design: both use system-shared memory with system-shared bus width and system-dependent bandwidth. Neither part has dedicated VRAM, and neither lists a memory clock. The bus interface differs: the 1 Xe uses IGP, while the 112EU uses Ring Bus. Display outputs for both are listed as Portable Device Dependent.

API support differs in the DirectX version. The 1 Xe lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), the 112EU lists DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The 1 Xe explicitly lists one ray tracing core, suggesting hardware ray tracing support, while the 112EU's ray tracing capability is absent from the records.

Release dates differ by roughly 28 months. The 112EU released on 2023-12-13, and the 1 Xe released on 2026-04-15. The power connector list shows "None" for the 1 Xe and is not recorded for the 112EU, but both are IGP-class parts without dedicated power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile. It delivers 3.942 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.885 TFLOPS FP16, versus 588.8 GFLOPS and 1,177.6 GFLOPS for the 1 Xe, a ratio of approximately 6.7 to 1 in both precisions.

Q: Does the 1 Xe have any performance advantage at all?

A: It has a higher boost clock at 2300 MHz versus 2200 MHz for the 112EU. It also has a lower TDP at 25 W versus 65 W, meaning it achieves its modest performance with less than half the power budget.

Q: Which GPU supports better DirectX features?

A: The 1 Xe supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the 112EU supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The 1 Xe also lists one ray tracing core, while the 112EU has no ray tracing core count recorded.

Q: Are these GPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The 1 Xe uses a 3 nm process, while the 112EU uses a 10 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: Do these GPUs have dedicated video memory?

A: No. Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Neither has a dedicated memory bus width or memory clock recorded.

Q: Which GPU is older?

A: The 112EU released on 2023-12-13. The 1 Xe released on 2026-04-15, making it the newer part by over two years.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile wins in every measurable throughput category. Its 3.942 TFLOPS FP32 is the standout figure, roughly 6.7 times the 1 Xe's 588.8 GFLOPS. Pixel fill rate favors the 112EU at 52.80 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s, and texture fill rate favors it at 123.2 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s. For gaming at any resolution, for 3D rendering, for compute workloads that use FP32 or FP16, for any task that stresses TMUs or ROPs, the 112EU is the stronger part by a wide margin. Its 65 W TDP is the cost of that performance, but the data shows no throughput scenario where the 1 Xe catches up.

Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile wins in efficiency and feature compliance. Its 25 W TDP is less than half the 112EU's 65 W, making it suitable for systems where thermal headroom is tight. Its 2300 MHz boost clock is higher than the 112EU's 2200 MHz, and its 3 nm process node is more advanced than the 112EU's 10 nm node. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support is the decisive feature advantage, as the 112EU only lists DirectX 12 (12_1). The 1 Xe also explicitly lists one ray tracing core, a capability absent from the 112EU's recorded specifications. For lightweight mobile devices, for display-only workloads, for applications that require 12_2 features, the 1 Xe is the correct choice.

The use-case split is clean. The 112EU targets performance-oriented integrated graphics in larger laptops or more power-tolerant designs. The 1 Xe targets minimal-power systems where API compliance matters more than raw speed. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so real-world application performance remains unmeasured, but the specification data points to a decisive performance hierarchy.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile | Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Wildcat Lake | Meteor Lake |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Xe-LPG |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) | Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2300 MHz | 2200 MHz |

| Shading Units | 128 | 896 |

| TMUs | 8 | 56 |

| ROPs | 4 | 24 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 1 | Not recorded |

| Pixel Rate | 9.200 GPixel/s | 52.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 18.40 GTexel/s | 123.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 588.8 GFLOPS | 3.942 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,177.6 GFLOPS (2:1) | 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 65 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | Ring Bus |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2023-12-13 |

Both parts share identical memory fields: system-shared size, type, bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. Both use Portable Device Dependent display outputs, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and list HD Graphics-M as their predecessor. Both are Active production parts with no recorded successor and no launch MSRP. Neither has benchmark scores, and both hold a 50th percentile ranking against all GPUs, reflecting the absence of measured data rather than parity in performance.