Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation occupy opposite ends of the integrated graphics spectrum. The Intel part is a low-power IGP built on a 3 nm process for the Wildcat Lake chip, while the NVIDIA solution is a high-end embedded GPU based on the AD104 chip with a 5 nm TSMC process. The recorded data shows a stark contrast in raw compute resources, memory configuration, and power envelopes, which defines their respective positions in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two GPUs, so the comparison must be built from their recorded specifications and derived performance rates. The most significant gap appears in FP32 floating-point throughput. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 23.04 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile provides 588.8 GFLOPS. This translates to the NVIDIA GPU having a 39.1x advantage in raw single-precision compute, a decisive margin for any workload that relies on shader processing or general-purpose compute.

The texture rate tells a similar story. The NVIDIA part reaches 360.0 GTexel/s, compared to 18.40 GTexel/s for the Intel IGP. That is a 19.6x difference in texture fill rate. The pixel rate gap is even wider: the NVIDIA GPU outputs 144.0 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s for the Intel solution, a 15.7x difference. These numbers indicate that the RTX 3500 Embedded can drive high-resolution rendering with complex textures at frame rates the Intel part cannot approach.

Memory bandwidth further separates the two. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile relies on system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent. In practice, shared memory bandwidth is typically far lower than dedicated GDDR6, and the database records no fixed figure for the Intel part, so the NVIDIA advantage here is substantial but not precisely quantified.

The compute unit counts reinforce the performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA GPU contains 5120 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Intel IGP contains 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, while the Intel part has a single RT core and no tensor cores. The FP16 throughput also differs: NVIDIA achieves 23.04 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while Intel reaches 1,177.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. Even accounting for the ratio difference, the NVIDIA GPU maintains a roughly 19.6x lead in half-precision compute.

Clock speeds offer a partial counterpoint. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has a much higher base clock of 1725 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. The Intel part actually has a higher boost clock, but this does little to close the gap given the massive difference in execution resources. The higher Intel boost clock reflects the efficiency of the 3 nm process, but it cannot compensate for the NVIDIA part's 40x advantage in shading units.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation is the dominant performer in every recorded compute metric. Its FP32 throughput of 23.04 TFLOPS, texture rate of 360.0 GTexel/s, pixel rate of 144.0 GPixel/s, and memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s place it in a different performance class entirely. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile, with 588.8 GFLOPS, 18.40 GTexel/s, 9.200 GPixel/s, and shared system memory, is designed for basic graphics output rather than demanding 3D workloads.

The power envelope tells the other side of the story. The Intel part consumes 25 W, while the NVIDIA part consumes 100 W, a 4x difference. The NVIDIA GPU also requires a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the Intel IGP has no such requirement. For systems where power draw is the primary constraint, the Intel solution has a clear advantage. The database records the NVIDIA part as an IGP with no display outputs, meaning it must be paired with a separate GPU or iGPU for display output, while the Intel part's display outputs are portable device dependent.

Both GPUs are listed as active production parts. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile was released on 2026-04-15, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation was released on 2023-03-20. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP in the database. The NVIDIA part is the successor to Ampere-MW and has a successor in Blackwell-MW, while the Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile wins in power efficiency. Its 25 W TDP is a quarter of the NVIDIA part's 100 W TDP, making it suitable for compact, fanless, or battery-powered devices where thermal and power budgets are tight. The 3 nm process node and the Xe3-LPG architecture indicate a modern, efficient design. The system shared memory model also eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM, reducing bill of materials costs and board complexity. Its higher boost clock of 2300 MHz, compared to 2250 MHz for the NVIDIA part, shows the Intel design can reach competitive clock speeds when needed.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation wins in every performance category. The 5120 shading units, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores provide the hardware foundation for ray tracing, AI inference, and high-end rendering. The 12 GB GDDR6 memory with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth allows large textures and complex scenes to fit in dedicated VRAM, avoiding the performance penalties of shared memory. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides a high-bandwidth connection to the host system, while the Intel part uses an IGP bus interface.

The NVIDIA part also offers more future-proofing through its API support. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the API feature set is identical. However, the NVIDIA part's tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated AI workloads that the Intel part cannot handle, as the Intel part has no tensor cores. The NVIDIA part's 40 RT cores versus the Intel part's single RT core also makes a significant difference in ray-traced workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 23.04 TFLOPS, which is 39.1x higher than the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile's 588.8 GFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a 25 W TDP, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has a 100 W TDP. The NVIDIA part also has a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the Intel part has no suggested PSU.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process from Intel, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

Q: How many RT cores does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 40 RT cores, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 1 RT core.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation for the Wildcat Lake chip. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the Ada-MW generation. The Intel part is manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA chip, AD104, contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

The execution resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Intel part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 1 RT core. The NVIDIA part has 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. The Intel part has no tensor cores, while the NVIDIA part's 160 tensor cores enable AI acceleration. The FP16 throughput ratio also differs: Intel operates at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while NVIDIA operates at a 1:1 ratio, meaning the NVIDIA part can sustain full FP16 throughput.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The Intel part uses system shared memory for both capacity and bandwidth, with the bus width also listed as system shared. The NVIDIA part uses 12 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with a 192-bit bus and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock for the NVIDIA part is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel part's memory clock is listed as system shared.

The power delivery and interface also differ. The Intel part has a 25 W TDP, an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and an IGP bus interface. The NVIDIA part has a 100 W TDP, an IGP slot width, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 300 W, and a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface. The display outputs are portable device dependent for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA part has no outputs at all. The NVIDIA part's production status is active, with a release date of 2023-03-20, and it is the predecessor to Blackwell-MW. The Intel part's production status is also active, with a release date of 2026-04-15, and its predecessor is HD Graphics-M.