Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile and the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile in fundamentally different positions. The Arc part, built on the Wildcat Lake chip and Xe3-LPG architecture, uses a 3 nm process with a 25 W TDP. The Iris Xe part, built on the Raptor Lake chip and Generation 12.2 architecture, uses a 10 nm process with a 15 W TDP.

The most decisive specification difference is raw shading capacity. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile carries 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units. The Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile carries 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units. Those are large gaps in parallel execution resources.

However, the Arc part has a much higher boost clock. The Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz, while the Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile boosts to 1450 MHz. That clock advantage partially offsets the shading unit deficit, but it cannot close a 5x gap in shading units and a 5x gap in texture mapping units.

The peak fill rates tell the story. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile records a pixel rate of 29.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 58.00 GTexel/s. The Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile records 9.200 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s. The Iris Xe part is roughly 3.2x ahead in pixel throughput and exactly 3.2x ahead in texture throughput.

The FP32 compute figures confirm the same pattern. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile delivers 1.856 TFLOPS, while the Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS. The Iris Xe part is 3.2x ahead in floating-point performance. The FP16 numbers follow: 3.712 TFLOPS versus 1,177.6 GFLOPS, again a 3.2x advantage for the Iris Xe part.

The Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile does include dedicated ray tracing cores, with 1 RT core listed. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile lists no RT cores. That is a meaningful feature difference for applications that use hardware ray tracing. The Arc part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Iris Xe part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). That means the Arc part can expose the full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, including features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, which are not available to the Iris Xe part.

The architecture gap is also notable. The Arc part uses Xe3-LPG, a newer generation design, while the Iris Xe part uses Generation 12.2. The Arc part is manufactured on a 3 nm process, while the Iris Xe part is on a 10 nm process. That process advantage enables the Arc part to reach a 2300 MHz boost clock within a 25 W envelope, whereas the Iris Xe part tops out at 1450 MHz within a 15 W envelope.

The production status for both parts is Active. The release dates differ: the Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile launched on 2023-01-03, while the Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile launched on 2026-04-15. The Iris Xe part is listed as the predecessor to the Arc Graphics-M generation, which is the generation the Arc part belongs to. The Arc part lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-M.

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput, fill rates, and established driver maturity, the Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile is the clear choice based on the measured specifications. For users who need hardware ray tracing support, DirectX 12 Ultimate compliance, or a newer architecture with a higher boost clock, the Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile provides those specific features.

The data does not include any head-to-head benchmark results, average benchmark scores, or nearest rival comparisons. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both parts at 50. Therefore, the verdict rests entirely on the specification sheet.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has 640 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 128 shading units.

Q: Does the Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile lists 1 RT core. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile lists no RT cores.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz, which is higher than the 1450 MHz boost clock of the Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile delivers 1.856 TFLOPS, while the Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS. That makes the Iris Xe part approximately 3.2x higher in FP32 performance.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which is not the Ultimate tier.

Q: What are the process nodes and TDPs?

A: The Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process with a 25 W TDP. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process with a 15 W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is built on the Wildcat Lake chip using the Xe3-LPG architecture. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile is built on the Raptor Lake chip using the Generation 12.2 architecture. These are separate architecture generations with different design goals.

The process node difference is substantial. The Arc part uses a 3 nm process, while the Iris Xe part uses a 10 nm process. The newer process allows the Arc part to operate at a 2300 MHz boost clock despite its 25 W TDP. The Iris Xe part, on a denser but older node, reaches only 1450 MHz at 15 W.

The execution resource layout diverges sharply. The Iris Xe part has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The Arc part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The Iris Xe part has exactly 5x the shading units, 5x the TMUs, and 5x the ROPs of the Arc part.

The Arc part includes 1 RT core, which is absent from the Iris Xe part. That gives the Arc part a hardware path for ray-traced effects. The Iris Xe part has no such hardware.

The bus interface differs. The Arc part uses an IGP interface, and the Iris Xe part uses a Ring Bus interface. Both share system memory with the host processor, and memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent for both.

The API support differs at the DirectX level. The Arc part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Iris Xe part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The production status for both is Active. The Arc part is part of the Arc Graphics-M generation (Wildcat Lake), and its predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-M. The Iris Xe part belongs to the HD Graphics-M generation (Raptor Lake), and its successor is listed as Arc Graphics-M. That places these two parts on opposite sides of a generational transition.

Specification Differences

The base clocks are identical at 300 MHz for both parts. The boost clocks differ: 2300 MHz for the Arc part versus 1450 MHz for the Iris Xe part.

The shading unit counts are 128 for the Arc part and 640 for the Iris Xe part. The TMU counts are 8 versus 40. The ROP counts are 4 versus 20. The RT core count is 1 for the Arc part, with none listed for the Iris Xe part.

The pixel rate is 9.200 GPixel/s for the Arc part and 29.00 GPixel/s for the Iris Xe part. The texture rate is 18.40 GTexel/s versus 58.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 588.8 GFLOPS versus 1.856 TFLOPS. FP16 is 1,177.6 GFLOPS versus 3.712 TFLOPS.

The TDP is 25 W for the Arc part and 15 W for the Iris Xe part. The process node is 3 nm versus 10 nm. The chip is Wildcat Lake versus Raptor Lake. The architecture is Xe3-LPG versus Generation 12.2.

The generation names differ: Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) versus HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake). The bus interface is IGP versus Ring Bus. The DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1).

The release dates differ: the Arc part released on 2026-04-15, and the Iris Xe part released on 2023-01-03. The predecessor field for the Arc part lists HD Graphics-M, and the successor field for the Iris Xe part lists Arc Graphics-M.

Both parts have the same memory configuration: System Shared size, type, and bus width. Both have System Dependent bandwidth. Both have Portable Device Dependent display outputs. Both have no power connectors listed, and both have no dimensions recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results for these two parts. The wins field is 0 for both, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. The average benchmark score is 0 for both. The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both. The nearest rivals arrays are empty for both.

The analysis must therefore rely on the recorded specification data, which provides clear quantitative differences.

The largest specification win for the Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile is in shading units. It has 640 shading units versus 128 for the Arc part, a 5x advantage. That advantage cascades into the texture and pixel pipelines, where the Iris Xe part has 40 TMUs versus 8, and 20 ROPs versus 4.

The compute throughput figures show a 3.2x advantage for the Iris Xe part across FP32, FP16, pixel rate, and texture rate. The pixel rate of 29.00 GPixel/s is 3.2x the 9.200 GPixel/s of the Arc part. The texture rate of 58.00 GTexel/s is 3.2x the 18.40 GTexel/s. The FP32 of 1.856 TFLOPS is 3.2x the 588.8 GFLOPS. The FP16 of 3.712 TFLOPS is 3.2x the 1,177.6 GFLOPS.

The Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile wins on boost clock, with 2300 MHz versus 1450 MHz. That is a 58.6% higher clock speed. The Arc part also wins on process node, using 3 nm versus 10 nm.

The Arc part has a TDP of 25 W, which is 10 W higher than the 15 W of the Iris Xe part. That higher power envelope allows the Arc part to sustain its higher clock speed despite having fewer execution units.

The Arc part has 1 RT core, and the Iris Xe part has none. That is a binary feature difference, not a scalar comparison.

The DirectX support difference is also binary: 12_2 versus 12_1. The Arc part supports the Ultimate feature set, and the Iris Xe part does not.

The release date difference is 2026-04-15 versus 2023-01-03, making the Arc part a later design by more than three years.

The specification data shows that the Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has a dominant position in raw throughput metrics, while the Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile holds advantages in clock speed, process node, ray tracing hardware, and DirectX feature level. Without benchmark scores, the throughput metrics are the primary quantitative basis for comparison.