Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain any head-to-head benchmark entries for this pairing. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has no benchmark scores listed, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 carries a full suite of nine benchmark results. This asymmetry means a direct score-for-score comparison is not possible from the database. What can be established is the RTX A400's absolute performance profile and where it sits among its nearest rivals, which provides a reference frame for assessing the Intel integrated part.

The RTX A400's strongest recorded result is in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 22,844 points. Its Geekbench Vulkan result trails slightly at 22,237 points, a difference of 607 points or roughly 2.7 percent. The Passmark suite shows a more varied picture: DirectX 9 yields 87 points, DirectX 10 drops to 32 points, DirectX 11 rises to 37 points, and DirectX 12 falls to 27 points. The Passmark G3D score of 5,983 and the Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,557 complete the main compute-oriented results, while the 2D score of 899 reflects a separate workload category.

The average benchmark score for the RTX A400 is 6,078. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, averages 6,077, a delta of 0 percent. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6,117 on average, which puts it 0.6 percent ahead of the RTX A400. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 averages 6,049, sitting 0.5 percent behind. The AMD Radeon 760M averages 6,019, trailing by 1 percent. These margins are all extremely tight, clustering within a single percentage point. The RTX A400's percentile rank among all GPUs is 35, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile holds the 50th percentile, though that percentile is not accompanied by any measured average score.

The data indicates the RTX A400 is a mid-pack performer in its immediate peer group. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are substantially higher than its Passmark figures would suggest, so the choice of workload dramatically changes the perceived performance. The Intel part lacks any benchmark entries, so its actual capabilities are not quantified in this database. Any comparison between the two must therefore rely on architectural and specification differences rather than measured outcomes.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. Its transistor count and die size are both listed as unknown. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip with the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. Its transistor count is 8,700 million, its die size is 200 mm², and its transistor density is 43.5 million per mm².

The Intel part is a mobile integrated graphics solution, bus interface marked as IGP, with a slot width of IGP and no power connectors. The RTX A400 is a discrete workstation card, single-slot, using a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The Intel chip's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 2,300 MHz. The RTX A400 runs at a base of 1,417 MHz and boosts to 1,762 MHz. The Intel part's lower base clock but higher boost clock suggests a wide dynamic range typical of power-constrained mobile designs, while the NVIDIA part operates in a narrower, higher-frequency window.

Shading unit counts differ sharply: the Intel Arc has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 raster operation units. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Ray tracing cores number 1 on the Intel part versus 6 on the RTX A400. Tensor cores are absent from the Intel specification but present at 24 on the RTX A400. The Intel part's pixel rate is 9.200 GPixel/s, its texture rate is 18.40 GTexel/s, its FP32 throughput is 588.8 GFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 1,177.6 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The RTX A400 delivers 28.19 GPixel/s, 42.29 GTexel/s, 2.706 TFLOPS FP32, and 2.706 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which means its FP16 rate is identical to FP32 rather than doubled.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The Intel Arc uses system shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all system dependent. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1,500 MHz or 12 Gbps effective. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature parity exists despite the architectural gulf.

The release dates are two years apart: the RTX A400 launched on 2024-04-15, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile appears with a release date of 2026-04-15. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M, and the RTX A400's predecessor is Quadro Turing. The NVIDIA card's successor is listed as Workstation Ada, while the Intel part has no successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in every measured compute category because the Intel part has no recorded benchmarks. The RTX A400's strengths are clear from its numbers: its OpenCL score of 22,844 and Vulkan score of 22,237 show strong general compute performance, while its Passmark G3D score of 5,983 and GPU Compute score of 2,557 indicate a capable workstation-oriented part. Its 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores give it a substantial execution resource advantage over the Intel part's 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 1 RT core.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile's potential advantages are architectural rather than measured. Its 3 nm process node is considerably more advanced than the RTX A400's 8 nm node, which implies better power efficiency per transistor. Its 25 W TDP is half the RTX A400's 50 W TDP, suggesting suitability for thin-and-light mobile devices where power draw is paramount. Its boost clock of 2,300 MHz exceeds the RTX A400's boost of 1,762 MHz, so the Intel part can reach higher peak frequencies even with fewer execution units. Its FP16 throughput of 1,177.6 GFLOPS is double its FP32 rate, which may benefit workloads that can exploit packed half-precision arithmetic, whereas the RTX A400's FP16 matches FP32 at 2.706 TFLOPS.

The RTX A400's memory subsystem is fixed and dedicated, with 4 GB of GDDR6 and 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part's system shared memory means its bandwidth is entirely dependent on the host platform's memory configuration, which is a variable that cannot be quantified from the database. For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, the RTX A400's deterministic 96.00 GB/s figure provides a known baseline, while the Intel part's performance would shift with system memory speed and channel configuration.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 3 nm for Intel versus 8 nm for NVIDIA, with the foundry difference being Intel for the former and Samsung for the latter. The RTX A400 has a known transistor count of 8,700 million and die size of 200 mm², while the Intel part's transistor count and die size are unknown. Transistor density is 43.5M per mm² for the RTX A400, and no density is listed for the Intel part.

Base clocks are 300 MHz versus 1,417 MHz, and boost clocks are 2,300 MHz versus 1,762 MHz. Memory size is system shared versus 4 GB, memory type is system shared versus GDDR6, bus width is system shared versus 64 bit, and bandwidth is system dependent versus 96.00 GB/s. Shading units are 128 versus 768, TMUs are 8 versus 24, ROPs are 4 versus 16, RT cores are 1 versus 6, and tensor cores are null versus 24.

Pixel rate is 9.200 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s, texture rate is 18.40 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s, FP32 is 588.8 GFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 1,177.6 GFLOPS at 2:1 versus 2.706 TFLOPS at 1:1. TDP is 25 W versus 50 W. Slot width is IGP versus single-slot. Power connectors are none for both, but the RTX A400 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Intel part lists none. Bus interface is IGP versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are portable device dependent versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Release dates differ by two years, with the RTX A400 launching in 2024 and the Intel part in 2026. The RTX A400 has a predecessor (Quadro Turing) and a successor (Workstation Ada), while the Intel part has a predecessor (HD Graphics-M) but no successor. The RTX A400 also has physical dimensions listed: 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the Intel part has no dimensions recorded. Both parts are marked as active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 has 2.706 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 588.8 GFLOPS FP32, so the RTX A400 is roughly 4.6 times higher in FP32 throughput.

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

A: The Intel part is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry, while the RTX A400 uses an 8 nm process at Samsung.

Q: How do their ray tracing capabilities compare?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 1 RT core, while the RTX A400 has 6 RT cores, giving the NVIDIA part a 6-to-1 advantage in RT core count.

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the RTX A400 and its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX A400 averages 6,078. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 averages 6,077 (0 percent delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 averages 6,049 (0.5 percent behind), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 averages 6,117 (0.6 percent ahead), and the AMD Radeon 760M averages 6,019 (1 percent behind).

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each part?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is rated at 25 W, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 is rated at 50 W, with a suggested PSU of 250 W for the RTX A400.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on use case. The NVIDIA RTX A400 is the only one of the two with any measured performance in the database, and its scores establish it as a functional discrete workstation GPU with 768 shading units, 6 RT cores, 24 tensor cores, and dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Its average benchmark score of 6,078 places it within 1 percent of four named rivals, making it a predictable mid-tier workstation option. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot form factor, with four mini-DisplayPort outputs, suit professional desktop or small-form-factor workstation builds.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile appears in the database with no benchmark scores, no memory specification beyond system shared, and no measured performance data. Its architectural advantages are the 3 nm process node, the 25 W TDP, and the higher 2,300 MHz boost clock. For a mobile integrated GPU, these traits point toward power efficiency and space savings rather than raw throughput. The FP16 rate of 1,177.6 GFLOPS being double the FP32 rate of 588.8 GFLOPS suggests an emphasis on workloads that can use packed half-precision math, but no benchmark data exists to confirm real-world impact.

The RTX A400's percentile rank of 35 versus the Intel part's 50 is a partial indicator, but the Intel percentile is not backed by any average score, so it cannot be treated as a measured superiority. The RTX A400's nearest rival cluster shows it performing essentially on par with older and newer integrated and discrete parts alike, all within a 1 percent band. The Intel part's true position remains unquantified.

A buyer needing a known, measurable workstation GPU with dedicated memory and established benchmark results should select the RTX A400. A mobile device designer prioritizing the lowest power draw, the most advanced process node, and an integrated form factor with no external power connectors should consider the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile. The two parts do not compete in the same physical or thermal envelope, and the database does not provide any head-to-head measurements to suggest otherwise.