Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The database records two Intel Arc Graphics Mobile parts built on the same Wildcat Lake chip and Xe3-LPG architecture. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is the smaller configuration, with 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, 4 render output units, and a single ray tracing core. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile doubles those execution resources to 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 RT cores. The recorded data shows the 2 Xe part also carries a higher boost clock of 2500 MHz versus 2300 MHz on the 1 Xe part, with both sharing a 300 MHz base clock.

From the specification data, the 2 Xe Mobile is the clear choice for any workload that scales with compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 1,280.0 GFLOPS is more than double the 588.8 GFLOPS of the 1 Xe part, and its pixel rate of 20.00 GPixel/s exceeds the 9.200 GPixel/s of the smaller chip by a wide margin. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, and neither has recorded benchmark scores or rival entries, so the analysis relies entirely on the architectural and clock differences. The 1 Xe Mobile fits scenarios where the lower resource count is sufficient for light graphical tasks, while the 2 Xe Mobile suits applications demanding higher fill rates and texture throughput. Both are active products with the same release date of 2026-04-15, the same 25 W TDP, and the same system shared memory configuration, so the 2 Xe part delivers substantially more performance within the same power envelope.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs belong to the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation and use the Xe3-LPG architecture fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process node. The chip itself is Wildcat Lake for both entries, and the foundry is Intel. Transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown in the database, so no comparison can be made on those fronts.

The execution pipeline differs by a factor of two across every major resource. The 1 Xe Mobile has 128 shading units, while the 2 Xe Mobile has 256. Texture mapping units number 8 versus 16, and render output units number 4 versus 8. Ray tracing cores double from 1 to 2. Neither part lists tensor cores in the database. The boost clock is the second differentiator: 2300 MHz for the 1 Xe part and 2500 MHz for the 2 Xe part, a gain of 200 MHz on the larger chip. Base clocks are identical at 300 MHz.

Memory architecture is identical on paper. Both use system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. The memory size and type are both listed as system shared. This means the memory subsystem performance is tied to the host platform, and the database does not assign a fixed bandwidth figure to either part.

The compute rates scale with the resource counts. The 1 Xe Mobile delivers a texture rate of 18.40 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s. The 2 Xe Mobile delivers 40.00 GTexel/s and 20.00 GPixel/s. FP32 throughput is 588.8 GFLOPS for the 1 Xe part and 1,280.0 GFLOPS for the 2 Xe part. FP16 figures are listed as 1,177.6 GFLOPS (2:1) for the 1 Xe part and 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) for the 2 Xe part. The 2:1 ratio notation indicates the FP16 rate is achieved through the same execution units operating in a packed mode.

Both parts expose the same API feature set. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 are recorded for each. Both are integrated graphics products with an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and portable device dependent display outputs. The power draw is identical at 25 W for both, which makes the 2 Xe part the more efficient option in terms of performance per watt given its higher throughput at the same TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark entries for either GPU, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. The wins counter shows 0 for both the 1 Xe Mobile and the 2 Xe Mobile. No nearest rivals are listed for either part, and the average benchmark score for both is 0. The percentile ranking of 50 for both parts places them at the median of the database's GPU distribution, though this ranking is based on the specification-derived score rather than measured workloads.

Without direct benchmark measurements, the comparison must come from the theoretical throughput figures. The 2 Xe Mobile's FP32 output of 1,280.0 GFLOPS is 117.4% higher than the 588.8 GFLOPS of the 1 Xe Mobile. The pixel rate difference is similar: 20.00 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s, a 117.4% advantage. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with 40.00 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s. These rates are all directly proportional to the doubled shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, so the scaling is perfectly linear across those resources.

The boost clock difference adds a secondary effect. The 2 Xe Mobile runs at 2500 MHz, which is 8.7% higher than the 2300 MHz of the 1 Xe Mobile. This clock advantage compounds with the doubled resource count. The FP16 rates show the same relationship: 2.560 TFLOPS for the 2 Xe part versus 1,177.6 GFLOPS for the 1 Xe part, again a 117.4% increase.

The ray tracing hardware also doubles, from 1 RT core to 2 RT cores. The database does not provide a dedicated ray tracing benchmark score, so the impact is qualitative: the 2 Xe Mobile has twice the ray tracing hardware available, which should improve ray traced workloads if the software scales with RT core count.

FAQ

Q: What is the difference in shading units between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 128 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 256 shading units, exactly double.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Wildcat Lake chip, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process node.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The 1 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz, while the 2 Xe Mobile boosts to 2500 MHz. Both have a base clock of 300 MHz.

Q: How do the FP32 performance figures compare?

A: The 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS, and the 2 Xe Mobile delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS, which is 117.4% higher.

Q: Are there any differences in API support?

A: No, both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: Both the 1 Xe Mobile and the 2 Xe Mobile are recorded with a TDP of 25 W.

Where Each One Wins

The 2 Xe Mobile wins on every measured compute metric in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 1,280.0 GFLOPS more than doubles the 588.8 GFLOPS of the 1 Xe Mobile. Its pixel rate of 20.00 GPixel/s beats the 9.200 GPixel/s of the smaller part, which matters for fill rate bound scenarios such as high resolution rendering or heavy fragment shading. The texture rate of 40.00 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s gives it a clear advantage in texture heavy workloads. The 2 Xe Mobile also has 2 ray tracing cores versus 1, so any ray traced effect has double the hardware available. The higher boost clock of 2500 MHz versus 2300 MHz provides an additional edge in clock sensitive workloads, and the doubled ROP count of 8 versus 4 strengthens output blending and memory write throughput.

The 1 Xe Mobile wins in the narrow sense of resource economy. It uses the same 25 W TDP, so it draws the same power while delivering roughly half the throughput. For tasks that do not need the full 256 shading units, the smaller configuration could reduce manufacturing cost at the system level, though the database does not list pricing for either part. The 1 Xe Mobile still supports the full API set including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it is not feature limited compared to the larger chip. Its lower resource count may also produce less heat density in thin portable devices, though the database records the same TDP for both.

The data shows no scenario where the 1 Xe Mobile outperforms the 2 Xe Mobile. Every specification that affects graphical throughput favors the larger chip. The 2 Xe Mobile is the appropriate pick for gaming, rendering, or any GPU accelerated compute workload. The 1 Xe Mobile is the appropriate pick only when the full performance of the 2 Xe part is unnecessary and the system designer prioritizes the smaller silicon footprint implied by fewer execution units. Both parts share the same memory architecture, system shared and system dependent bandwidth, so neither has a fixed memory advantage. The choice reduces to whether the doubled execution resources and higher boost clock justify the larger configuration, and the benchmark data, while empty of measured scores, points entirely toward the 2 Xe Mobile on paper.