Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile, as the database shows zero benchmark entries for that part. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation, however, has a full set of ten benchmark scores across multiple test suites, and its average benchmark score of 18,954 places it at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. This makes direct numerical comparison impossible for the Intel part, but the NVIDIA card's performance profile can be characterized against its nearest rivals.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers its strongest result in the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 83,360, followed closely by the Geekbench OpenCL result of 78,074. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 1,767. The PassMark suite shows a more varied picture: the DirectX 9 score of 216 is the highest among the legacy DirectX tests, while DirectX 11 scores 138, DirectX 10 scores 82, and DirectX 12 scores 71. The PassMark G3D score of 16,927 is substantially higher than the GPU compute score of 7,834, indicating that the card's rasterization performance outpaces its compute throughput in that particular benchmark. The PassMark G2D score of 1,072 reflects 2D graphics performance.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation sits in a tight cluster. It is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, which averages 19,030, and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6600, which averages 19,036. It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K80, which averages 18,866, and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile, which averages 19,049. These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, indicating that the RTX 2000 Ada Generation performs in line with a well-established group of mid-range and workstation-class GPUs from both the previous and current generations. The benchmark data suggests that in synthetic workloads, the card is effectively interchangeable with these rivals, with no single competitor holding a decisive margin.

Because the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has no recorded benchmarks, the database offers no evidence of where that part wins or loses against the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. The wins count for both parts is zero in the head-to-head data. The analysis must therefore rely on architectural specifications and the NVIDIA card's measured performance to infer likely behavior, but no direct score comparison is possible.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing processes. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip built on Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process node at TSMC. The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation for Wildcat Lake, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the Workstation Ada generation.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ dramatically, though the Intel part's figures are listed as unknown in the database. The NVIDIA chip contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 118.9 million per square millimeter. The Intel part's die size and transistor count are not recorded. The Intel chip is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a bus interface of IGP and a slot width of IGP, meaning it is designed to be built into a mobile processor rather than installed as a discrete component. The NVIDIA card is a dual-slot discrete solution using a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory, with the memory size, type, and bus width all listed as system shared. Its memory bandwidth is system dependent, and its memory clock is also system shared. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s and a memory clock of 2000 MHz or 16 Gbps effective. This gives the NVIDIA card a dedicated, high-bandwidth memory pool that the Intel part cannot match, since the Intel GPU must share system memory bandwidth with the CPU.

Compute resources are vastly different in scale. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 raster output units. It has 1 ray tracing core and no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 2,816 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. It has 22 ray tracing cores and 88 tensor cores. The NVIDIA card's shading unit count is 22 times higher, its TMU count is 11 times higher, and its ROP count is 12 times higher. The ray tracing core count difference is also substantial at 22 to 1.

Clock speeds and derived throughput figures reflect these resource differences. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2300 MHz, while the NVIDIA card has a base clock of 1620 MHz and a boost clock of 2130 MHz. Despite the Intel part's higher boost clock relative to its base, the raw throughput numbers favor NVIDIA overwhelmingly. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 9.200 GPixel/s of pixel rate, 18.40 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 588.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its FP16 performance is 1,177.6 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers 102.2 GPixel/s of pixel rate, 187.4 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 12.00 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its FP16 performance is also 12.00 TFLOPS, but at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain a throughput advantage when switching to FP16. The NVIDIA card's FP32 throughput is more than 20 times higher than the Intel part's.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W, uses no power connectors, and is an IGP with a slot width of IGP. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a TDP of 70 W, also uses no power connectors, and is a dual-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The NVIDIA card lists a suggested power supply of 250 W. The Intel part's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the NVIDIA card has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature coverage is identical. The Intel part is listed as an active production part released on 2026-04-15, with a predecessor of HD Graphics-M and no successor. The NVIDIA card is also active, released on 2024-02-11, with a predecessor of Workstation Ampere and a successor of Blackwell PRO W.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile compare to the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation in terms of FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA card delivers 12.00 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel part delivers 588.8 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA card's FP32 output is more than 20 times higher.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the ray tracing capability difference between the two?

A: The Intel part has 1 ray tracing core, while the NVIDIA card has 22 ray tracing cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores available for the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile?

A: The database records zero benchmark entries for the Intel part. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has ten recorded benchmark scores, with an average of 18,954.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two chips?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: It is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 and the AMD Radeon RX 6600, 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile, and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K80.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Manufacturer: Intel versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Wildcat Lake versus AD107
• Architecture: Xe3-LPG versus Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) versus Workstation Ada (x000A)
• Process node: 3 nm versus 5 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: unknown versus 18,900 million
• Die size: unknown versus 159 mm²
• Transistor density: null versus 118.9M / mm²
• Base clock: 300 MHz versus 1620 MHz
• Boost clock: 2300 MHz versus 2130 MHz
• Memory clock: System Shared versus 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective
• Memory size: System Shared versus 16 GB
• Memory type: System Shared versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: System Shared versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: System Dependent versus 256.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 128 versus 2816
• TMUs: 8 versus 88
• ROPs: 4 versus 48
• RT cores: 1 versus 22
• Tensor cores: null versus 88
• Pixel rate: 9.200 GPixel/s versus 102.2 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 18.40 GTexel/s versus 187.4 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 588.8 GFLOPS versus 12.00 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 1,177.6 GFLOPS (2:1) versus 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 25 W versus 70 W
• Slot width: IGP versus Dual-slot
• Suggested PSU: null versus 250 W
• Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions: null versus 168 mm length, 69 mm height
• Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2024-02-11
• Predecessor: HD Graphics-M versus Workstation Ampere
• Successor: null versus Blackwell PRO W
• Launch MSRP: null versus 649 USD
• Benchmarks: none versus ten recorded scores
• Percentile: 50 versus 63
• Average benchmark score: 0 versus 18,954

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile wins in the areas of power efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is less than half of the NVIDIA card's 70 W TDP, and it is an IGP with no power connectors, no slot width, and a bus interface of IGP. This means it is designed for portable devices where the display outputs are device dependent, and it requires no separate power delivery. Its 3 nm process node is more advanced than the NVIDIA card's 5 nm node, which suggests a more modern manufacturing approach, though the database does not record die size or transistor count to confirm any density advantage. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock of 2300 MHz compared to the NVIDIA card's 2130 MHz, though the NVIDIA card has a much higher base clock of 1620 MHz versus 300 MHz.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins decisively in raw compute and rendering throughput. Its FP32 performance of 12.00 TFLOPS is over 20 times higher than the Intel part's 588.8 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 187.4 GTexel/s is over 10 times higher, and its pixel rate of 102.2 GPixel/s is over 11 times higher. The NVIDIA card has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA card's 22 ray tracing cores and 88 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration that the Intel part lacks entirely, since it has no tensor cores and only 1 ray tracing core. The NVIDIA card also has a recorded benchmark profile that places it at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 18,954 that sits within 0.5% of its nearest rivals, confirming solid mid-range workstation performance. The Intel part has no recorded benchmarks and sits at the 50th percentile by default.

The use-case split is clear from the specifications. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is suited to ultra-thin portable devices where power draw is critical, integrated graphics are mandatory, and the workload is light or occasional. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation, with its dual-slot form factor, 70 W TDP, suggested 250 W power supply, and four mini-DisplayPort outputs, is designed for workstation desktops or larger mobile workstations where the dedicated memory, high throughput, and ray tracing and tensor acceleration are available for professional rendering, compute, and AI workloads. The database shows no benchmark overlap, so the comparison rests entirely on the architectural and specification differences recorded above.