Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile Comparison

The database compares Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, but the two records are not symmetrical. The Intel part has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals. The NVIDIA part has eight recorded benchmark scores, an average score of 8746, a 44th percentile ranking, and four nearest rivals. Consequently, the measured performance story is one-sided, while the Intel part must be evaluated from its specification sheet.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile have any benchmark results in the database?

A: No. The Intel part has no benchmark entries, so its average benchmark score is 0 and no nearest rivals are listed. The database only records its specifications, including a 3 nm process, 128 shading units, and a 25 W TDP.

Q: What is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile's overall standing?

A: It has an average benchmark score of 8746 and sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its recorded tests include Geekbench OpenCL 52998, Passmark G3D 11664, and Passmark GPU compute 4419.

Q: How close are the RTX 3050 A Mobile's nearest rivals?

A: The GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8743 with a 0% delta, the Quadro P2200 scores 8686 with a 0.7% delta, the Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851 with a -1.2% delta, and the Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 8863 with a -1.3% delta.

Q: Which GPU has more dedicated graphics memory?

A: The NVIDIA part has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent.

Q: Are there any direct head-to-head benchmark records between the two?

A: No. The database has no head-to-head benchmark records for these two parts, and the win count is 0 for both. The only numerical comparison available is the NVIDIA part's standalone scores and nearest-rival deltas.

Q: Which part is newer and still listed as active?

A: The Intel part has a release date of 2026-04-15 and is listed as Active. The NVIDIA part has a release date of 2023-12-31 and is listed as End-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architecture generations. Intel's part uses Xe3-LPG on the Wildcat Lake chip, belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation, and is fabricated by Intel on a 3 nm process. NVIDIA's part uses the Ampere architecture on the GA106 chip, belongs to the GeForce 30 Mobile generation, and is fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. NVIDIA discloses 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die with a transistor density of 43.5M / mm²; Intel lists transistor count and die size as unknown.

Compute resources differ sharply. The Intel GPU has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, 4 ROPs, and 1 ray tracing core, with no tensor core count listed. The NVIDIA GPU has 1792 shading units, 56 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 14 ray tracing cores, and 56 tensor cores. Memory architecture also separates them: Intel uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s.

Clock behavior also differs. Intel starts at 300 MHz and boosts to 2300 MHz, while NVIDIA starts at 1065 MHz and boosts to 1343 MHz. NVIDIA lists a memory clock of 1500 MHz 12 Gbps effective, while Intel's memory clock is System Shared. Rasterization throughput follows the same pattern: Intel's pixel rate is 9.200 GPixel/s and texture rate is 18.40 GTexel/s, while NVIDIA's pixel rate is 42.98 GPixel/s and texture rate is 75.21 GTexel/s. FP16 throughput is 1,177.6 GFLOPS (2:1) for Intel and 4.813 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

Both parts expose the same API feature set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface differs, with Intel listed as IGP and NVIDIA as PCIe 4.0 x8. The NVIDIA part uses a 45 W TDP, while Intel uses 25 W.

Where Each One Wins

Because the Intel part has no recorded benchmark scores, it cannot claim any measured wins in the database. The RTX 3050 A Mobile holds all eight standalone benchmark entries: Geekbench OpenCL 52998, Passmark G2D 526, Passmark G3D 11664, Passmark GPU compute 4419, Passmark DX9 152, Passmark DX11 94, Passmark DX10 61, and Passmark DX12 55. These are not head-to-head results against the Intel part, but they are the only recorded wins available.

On specifications, the Intel part is positioned for low-power integrated use. Its 25 W TDP, IGP bus interface, and System Shared memory make it a candidate for compact portable systems. The NVIDIA part is positioned for higher-throughput workloads. Its 4 GB GDDR6 memory, 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, 4.813 TFLOPS FP32, and 14 RT cores indicate a much larger rendering and compute envelope.

Specification Differences

The table lists fields where the two records differ.

| Field | Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile |

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

| Series | Not listed | GeForce 30-series |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Ampere |

| Chip | Wildcat Lake | GA106 |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) | GeForce 30 Mobile |

| Process node | 3 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | Samsung |

| Transistors | Unknown | 12,000 million |

| Die size | Unknown | 276 mm² |

| Transistor density | Not listed | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 300 MHz | 1065 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2300 MHz | 1343 MHz |

| Memory clock | System Shared | 1500 MHz 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory | System Shared | 4 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory bus | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 128 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 8 | 56 |

| ROPs | 4 | 32 |

| RT cores | 1 | 14 |

| Tensor cores | Not listed | 56 |

| Pixel rate | 9.200 GPixel/s | 42.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 18.40 GTexel/s | 75.21 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 588.8 GFLOPS | 4.813 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,177.6 GFLOPS (2:1) | 4.813 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 45 W |

| Bus interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2023-12-31 |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-M | GeForce 20 Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any head-to-head benchmark records for these two GPUs. The win counters are 0 for both parts, so there is no direct measured margin to report. The closest available benchmark context is the NVIDIA part's standalone results and its nearest-rival deltas.

The RTX 3050 A Mobile's largest standalone score is Geekbench OpenCL at 52998. Passmark G3D follows at 11664, and Passmark GPU compute at 4419. The 2D Passmark score is 526. The legacy DirectX scores are lower: Passmark DX9 152, DX11 94, DX10 61, and DX12 55. These numbers show that the NVIDIA part's biggest numerical results come from OpenCL and 3D tests, while its DirectX 9/10/11/12 sub-scores are much smaller in magnitude.

On nearest-rival deltas, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is 0.7% ahead of the Quadro P2200 (8686) and 0% from the GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743). It trails the Radeon R9 M265X (8851) by 1.2% and the Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863) by 1.3%. These are small margins, which suggests the NVIDIA part sits in a tightly packed performance cluster near the 44th percentile.

The Verdict

Strictly from the recorded data, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is the higher-throughput part. It carries 1792 shading units, 56 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 14 RT cores, 56 tensor cores, 4 GB GDDR6, and 4.813 TFLOPS FP32. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile carries 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, 1 RT core, no listed tensor core count, System Shared memory, and 588.8 GFLOPS FP32. Every listed compute resource favors the NVIDIA part.

The Intel part has its own advantages in the specification records. It uses a 3 nm Intel process, draws 25 W, uses an IGP bus interface, is listed as Active, and has a newer release date of 2026-04-15. The NVIDIA part uses an 8 nm Samsung process, draws 45 W, uses PCIe 4.0 x8, is End-of-life, and has a release date of 2023-12-31.

For a workload that demands dedicated memory, high shader throughput, and ray tracing resources, the database points to the RTX 3050 A Mobile. For a system that needs a low-power integrated GPU with no dedicated memory, the Intel part is the one the specification sheet supports. The absence of Intel benchmark scores means this conclusion rests on specifications rather than direct measurements.