Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010. The Intel part has no benchmark entries, while the NVIDIA GPU shows a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2893. This places the RTX 4010 at the 18th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning roughly four-fifths of recorded graphics processors score higher. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile holds a 50th percentile ranking despite its lack of a direct score, which is an oddity in the dataset that likely reflects a default placeholder rather than measured performance.

The RTX 4010's closest measured rivals in the database are revealing. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB scores 2907, a delta of -0.5% relative to the RTX 4010. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF posts 2910, a -0.6% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB delivers 2913, a -0.7% delta. Even the NVIDIA Quadro P600, a much older professional card, records 2923, which is -1% relative to the RTX 4010. These deltas are all within one percentage point, indicating the RTX 4010 sits in a tightly clustered performance band where a single benchmark run could reorder the standings. The data shows the RTX 4010 is essentially tied with these four rivals in Steel Nomad, despite vast generational and architectural gaps between them.

For the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile, the absence of benchmark data means no quantitative comparison is possible. The database lists zero wins for either part in head-to-head testing. The only reliable comparison comes from theoretical throughput numbers. The Intel GPU's FP32 performance is 588.8 GFLOPS, while the RTX 4010 reaches 2.706 TFLOPS. That is a 4.6x advantage for NVIDIA in raw single-precision compute. Texture rate favors NVIDIA similarly: 42.29 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s, a 2.3x gap. Pixel rate shows 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX 4010 versus 9.200 GPixel/s for Intel, a 3.1x difference. These theoretical figures do not always translate directly to real-world gaming performance, but the magnitude of the gap suggests the RTX 4010 holds a commanding lead in rasterization throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel's Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 uses the GA107 chip based on the older Ampere architecture, produced on an 8 nm node at Samsung. The process node difference is stark: 3 nm versus 8 nm represents two full generations of lithography advancement. Intel's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, while NVIDIA's GA107 contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The Intel part's density cannot be calculated from the available data, but a 3 nm node typically allows much higher density than 8 nm at equivalent die sizes.

Core configuration differences are substantial. The Intel GPU packs 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, 4 render output units, and 1 ray tracing core. It has no dedicated tensor cores listed. The RTX 4010 fields 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 ray tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores. That is a 6x advantage in shading units, a 3x advantage in TMUs, a 4x advantage in ROPs, a 6x advantage in ray tracing cores, and a 24x advantage in tensor cores. These ratios align with the throughput gaps observed in FP32, texture, and pixel rates. The tensor core presence is significant: NVIDIA's Ampere architecture supports DLSS and other AI-accelerated features, while Intel's Xe3-LPG with no tensor cores cannot match that capability.

Clock behavior differs notably. The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 2300 MHz. The RTX 4010 starts at 1417 MHz base and reaches 1762 MHz boost. Intel's boost clock is 538 MHz higher than NVIDIA's, but the NVIDIA chip achieves higher throughput despite lower clocks because it has far more execution resources. Peak clock advantage does not offset the core count disparity. Memory architecture is also divergent. Intel uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA employs 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus delivering 96.00 GB/s. The Intel solution's bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," meaning its effective memory performance varies with the host platform's RAM configuration. The RTX 4010 has a fixed, measurable memory pipeline.

API support is identical on paper: both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Power characteristics differ by a factor of two: Intel's TDP is 25 W, NVIDIA's is 50 W. The Intel part requires no power connectors and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), while the RTX 4010 is a single-slot discrete card with no power connectors but a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RTX 4010 connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel's IGP uses the internal graphics bus. Display outputs on the Intel side are portable-device dependent, whereas the RTX 4010 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4010 wins in every measurable compute category. Its FP32 throughput of 2.706 TFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS makes it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute workloads like physics simulation, video encoding, or scientific calculations that leverage raw floating-point performance. Its 24 tensor cores enable AI inference and DLSS upscaling, features entirely absent from the Intel part's specification sheet. The 4 GB dedicated GDDR6 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent, predictable memory performance, whereas Intel's system-shared memory depends entirely on the host laptop or handheld's RAM speed and architecture.

The RTX 4010 also wins in ray tracing. Its 6 dedicated RT cores versus Intel's single RT core gives it a structural advantage for any workload using ray-traced effects. The 3x advantage in texture rate (42.29 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s) suggests better performance in texture-heavy scenes common in modern games. The 3.1x pixel rate advantage means higher fill rates for resolution-heavy rendering. The RTX 4010's 16 ROPs versus 4 ROPs further supports this fill-rate dominance.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. At 25 W TDP, it consumes half the power of the RTX 4010's 50 W. As an IGP with no power connectors and no slot width, it requires no additional cooling or board space. The 3 nm process node indicates modern fabrication efficiency, and the 300 MHz base clock suggests aggressive power gating is possible at idle. The boost clock of 2300 MHz shows Intel can scale performance when thermal headroom allows. For ultra-portable devices like handheld gaming consoles or thin-and-light laptops, the Intel part's integration and low power draw are decisive advantages.

The Intel GPU also wins in production timeline. Its release date is 2026-04-15, while the RTX 4010 launched on 2024-04-15. The Intel part is two years newer, meaning it benefits from more recent design techniques. Its Xe3-LPG architecture is a later generation than Ampere. However, architecture recency does not compensate for the massive resource deficit. The data shows the RTX 4010 outperforms the Intel part in every recorded performance metric, while the Intel part's advantages are confined to power, size, and integration.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field in the database. Process node: Intel uses 3 nm, NVIDIA uses 8 nm. Foundry: Intel fabricates in-house, NVIDIA uses Samsung. Transistors: Intel is unknown, NVIDIA has 8,700 million. Die size: Intel unknown, NVIDIA is 200 mm². Base clock: Intel 300 MHz, NVIDIA 1417 MHz. Boost clock: Intel 2300 MHz, NVIDIA 1762 MHz. Memory size: Intel system shared, NVIDIA 4 GB GDDR6. Memory bus: Intel system shared, NVIDIA 64 bit. Memory bandwidth: Intel system dependent, NVIDIA 96.00 GB/s. Shading units: Intel 128, NVIDIA 768. TMUs: Intel 8, NVIDIA 24. ROPs: Intel 4, NVIDIA 16. RT cores: Intel 1, NVIDIA 6. Tensor cores: Intel none, NVIDIA 24. Pixel rate: Intel 9.200 GPixel/s, NVIDIA 28.19 GPixel/s. Texture rate: Intel 18.40 GTexel/s, NVIDIA 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32: Intel 588.8 GFLOPS, NVIDIA 2.706 TFLOPS. FP16: Intel 1,177.6 GFLOPS (2:1), NVIDIA 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP: Intel 25 W, NVIDIA 50 W. Slot width: Intel IGP, NVIDIA single-slot. Power connectors: both none, but NVIDIA lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. Bus interface: Intel IGP, NVIDIA PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: Intel portable-device dependent, NVIDIA 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions: Intel none listed, NVIDIA 163 mm length, 69 mm height. Release date: Intel 2026-04-15, NVIDIA 2024-04-15. Predecessor: Intel HD Graphics-M, NVIDIA GeForce 30. Successor: Intel none, NVIDIA GeForce 50. Percentile: Intel 50, NVIDIA 18. Average benchmark score: Intel 0, NVIDIA 2893. Fields that match: both have DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, active production status, and no launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 588.8 GFLOPS for the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile. The RTX 4010 is approximately 4.6x faster in single-precision floating-point throughput.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and bus width, meaning its performance relies on the host platform's RAM. The RTX 4010 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with a fixed 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has a TDP of 50 W. The RTX 4010 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Intel IGP requires no separate power supply consideration.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The RTX 4010 also includes 24 tensor cores for AI-accelerated features, which the Intel part lacks.

Q: What does the RTX 4010's benchmark score indicate relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 4010 scores 2893 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals score within 1%: the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB at 2907 (-0.5%), RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF at 2910 (-0.6%), RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB at 2913 (-0.7%), and Quadro P600 at 2923 (-1%).

Q: Which part is newer and what process node does each use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile releases on 2026-04-15 and uses a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 releases on 2024-04-15 and uses an 8 nm process at Samsung.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 holds decisive advantages in every recorded throughput metric: 4.6x in FP32, 2.3x in texture rate, 3.1x in pixel rate, 6x in shading units, 6x in ray tracing cores, and 24x in tensor cores. Its 2893 Steel Nomad score places it in a tight cluster with the RTX 4060 Ti family and RTX PRO 4000, all within one percentage point, indicating competitive mid-range performance. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores, so its real-world performance cannot be verified from the database.

The RTX 4010 suits workloads requiring raw compute, ray tracing, AI features, or dedicated memory bandwidth. Its 4 GB GDDR6 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth provides stable memory performance that system-shared memory cannot guarantee. The 24 tensor cores enable DLSS and other AI accelerations, a capability the Intel part cannot offer. The 50 W TDP and single-slot form factor allow installation in compact desktops or small form factor systems.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile suits ultra-low-power integrated scenarios. Its 25 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors make it appropriate for handheld devices or thin laptops where discrete GPUs are physically impossible. The 3 nm process suggests excellent power efficiency at idle. The 2300 MHz boost clock shows it can ramp up when needed, but the 128 shading units and single RT core cap its absolute performance far below the RTX 4010.

The data indicates the RTX 4010 is the superior performer in every measurable category. The Intel part's advantages are structural: power draw, integration, and manufacturing recency. For any use case where a discrete slot and 50 W are acceptable, the RTX 4010 dominates. For battery-constrained portable devices where no discrete GPU can fit, the Intel IGP is the only viable option between these two. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the RTX 4010 sits at the 18th percentile, meaning 82% of database GPUs outperform it, but the Intel part has no score at all. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload demands performance or integration, and the database shows no scenario where the Intel part wins on raw graphics capability.