Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA H800 SXM5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA H800 SXM5. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs, which indicates that neither part has accumulated measurable performance data in the database at this time. The wins tally for each product stands at zero, meaning there are no direct comparison outcomes to report.

Without recorded scores, the raw specification gap provides the only quantitative frame. The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 delivers 59.30 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS. That places the H800 at roughly 100 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part, a difference so large that any benchmark run would likely saturate the H800's advantage in compute-bound workloads. On the memory side, the H800 carries 80 GB of HBM3 across a 5120-bit bus with 3.36 TB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Intel GPU uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The H800's memory subsystem offers over three terabytes per second of dedicated bandwidth; the Intel part offers no fixed memory bandwidth figure at all.

The pixel rate differential is similarly stark: the H800 outputs 42.12 GPixel/s versus the Intel part's 9.200 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the H800 at 926.6 GTexel/s against 18.40 GTexel/s. These are the only concrete performance-related numbers in the database for either product, and they all point in one direction. The absence of benchmark entries means the database cannot confirm any workload-specific win for either GPU, but the recorded specifications establish a clear hierarchy in raw throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different architectural lineages and target entirely different form factors. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Wildcat Lake chip, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation and succeeds HD Graphics-M. The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 uses the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Server Hopper generation and succeeds Server Ada, with Server Blackwell listed as its successor.

The transistor counts illustrate the scale gap. The H800 integrates 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die with a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The Intel part's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no direct comparison is possible. The H800's physical footprint is a SXM Module with an 8-pin EPS power connector and a suggested PSU of 1100 W. The Intel part is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 25 W TDP. Bus interfaces differ as well: the H800 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel GPU uses IGP, meaning it is built into the processor package rather than installed as a discrete card.

Memory architecture separates the two sharply. The H800 uses 80 GB of HBM3 with a 5120-bit bus and a fixed 3.36 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system-shared memory for both capacity and bus width, with bandwidth explicitly dependent on the host system. Clock behavior also differs: the H800 runs at a 1095 MHz base and 1755 MHz boost with a memory clock of 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective), while the Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 2300 MHz boost with no dedicated memory clock.

Compute resources are in different classes. The H800 has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. The Intel part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 1 ray tracing core. Tensor cores are not listed for the Intel GPU. FP16 throughput illustrates the compute gap: the H800 achieves 237.2 TFLOPS at a 4:1 ratio, while the Intel part achieves 1,177.6 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. API support also differs: the Intel GPU lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the H800 lists no API entries at all, consistent with a server accelerator that relies on compute frameworks rather than graphics APIs.

Display output is another differentiator. The Intel part lists display outputs as portable device dependent, meaning it can drive screens in mobile systems. The H800 lists no outputs, confirming it is a compute-only accelerator.

The Verdict

The recorded data positions these products as mutually exclusive solutions. The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 is a 700 W server module with a 80,000 million transistor die, 80 GB of HBM3, and 59.30 TFLOPS FP32 throughput. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is a 25 W integrated GPU with system-shared memory, 128 shading units, and 588.8 GFLOPS FP32 compute. No benchmark scores exist for either, so the verdict rests on the specification sheet.

The H800 is the only option for workloads that demand massive parallel throughput, high memory bandwidth, or tensor core acceleration. Its 528 tensor cores and 3.36 TB/s memory bandwidth target training and inference tasks in server environments. The Intel part, by contrast, targets portable devices where power draw and physical integration matter. Its 25 W TDP and IGP bus interface make it suitable for thin-and-light systems, while its display outputs allow it to drive portable panels. The H800 has no display outputs.

The data does not support any scenario where the Intel part competes with the H800 on performance. It supports a scenario where the H800 cannot be used at all due to its SXM form factor, 700 W power requirement, and lack of display outputs. The choice is not about preference but about deployment context: servers and compute clusters versus mobile devices.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 delivers 59.30 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS.

Q: What memory configurations do the two products use?

A: The H800 uses 80 GB of HBM3 with a 5120-bit bus and 3.36 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with no fixed capacity, bus width, or bandwidth figures.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores recorded for either product?

A: No. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, a percentile ranking of 50, and no head-to-head results in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for the H800 and the Intel GPU?

A: The H800 has a 700 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1100 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a 25 W TDP and no power connectors.

Q: Can the Intel GPU output video?

A: Yes, its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The H800 lists no outputs.

Q: Which product has tensor cores?

A: The H800 has 528 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile lists no tensor cores; it has 1 ray tracing core instead.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 wins every recorded metric that measures raw processing capability. Its FP32 throughput of 59.30 TFLOPS exceeds the Intel part's 588.8 GFLOPS by a factor of roughly 100. Its FP16 throughput of 237.2 TFLOPS dwarfs the Intel part's 1,177.6 GFLOPS. Pixel rate favors the H800 at 42.12 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s, and texture rate favors it at 926.6 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is a one-sided contest: 3.36 TB/s dedicated HBM3 versus system-dependent shared memory. The H800 also wins on shading units (16,896 versus 128), TMUs (528 versus 8), ROPs (24 versus 4), and transistor count (80,000 million versus unknown). Its 528 tensor cores give it a capability the Intel part simply does not list.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile wins on integration and efficiency metrics. Its 25 W TDP is a fraction of the H800's 700 W. It uses no power connectors and occupies no expansion slot, being an IGP. It supports display output on portable devices, something the H800 cannot do. Its process node is smaller at 3 nm versus 5 nm, and its base clock is higher at 300 MHz versus 1095 MHz only in the sense that the absolute numbers differ; the H800's boost clock of 1755 MHz is lower than the Intel part's 2300 MHz boost, though the H800's clock advantage is irrelevant given its massive compute resource count. The Intel part also carries graphics API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4) where the H800 lists none.

For use-case splitting, the H800 belongs in server racks and compute clusters where 80 GB of HBM3, 528 tensor cores, and 59.30 TFLOPS of FP32 feed large-scale parallel jobs. The Intel part belongs in portable devices where a 25 W integrated GPU with system-shared memory and display outputs handles graphics, video decode, and light compute within a tight power envelope. The database shows no overlap in deployment scenarios and no benchmark data to suggest any crossover.