Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile vs Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two mobile integrated graphics parts contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores. Both entries in the database report an average benchmark score of zero, and the wins counter for each side is also zero. This means the quantitative comparison must be built entirely from the specification-derived metrics that are present in the database, particularly the fill rates, compute throughput, and clock behavior.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile delivers a pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s, which is 43.5% higher than the 36.80 GPixel/s recorded for the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. That gap is substantial for an integrated part and indicates that the 112EU configuration is designed to push more pixels through its raster pipeline per second. The texture rate tells a similar story: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s, a 67.4% advantage for the 112EU part. These are not small margins; they represent the structural difference in execution resources between the two designs.

The shading unit count is 896 for the 112EU part, compared to 512 for the 4 Xe part. That is a 75% difference in raw shading hardware. The TMU count is 56 against 32, and the ROP count is 24 against 16. Every fixed-function block that determines rasterization throughput is larger on the 112EU part. The FP32 compute figure confirms the pattern: 3.942 TFLOPS for the 112EU versus 2.355 TFLOPS for the 4 Xe, a 67.4% lead. The FP16 figures are 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) and 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1), respectively, preserving the same ratio.

The boost clock is one area where the newer part holds an edge. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile boosts to 2200 MHz. That is a 4.5% clock advantage for the 4 Xe part. However, the 4 Xe part cannot translate that clock speed into higher absolute throughput because it has fewer execution units. The base clock is identical at 300 MHz for both parts, so the idle and low-load behavior should be similar, but the boost ceiling is slightly higher on the newer design.

The TDP figures show a major divergence: 65 W for the 112EU part and 25 W for the 4 Xe part. That is a 2.6x difference in power envelope. The 112EU part uses more than double the power budget of the 4 Xe part, which explains why it can sustain significantly higher fill rates and compute throughput. The power connector field is listed as "None" for the 4 Xe part, consistent with its 25 W envelope, while the 112EU part has no connector data recorded, which is typical for an IGP slot width design.

The bus interface also differs: the 112EU part uses "Ring Bus" while the 4 Xe part uses "IGP". Both share the "System Shared" memory configuration, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM on either part. Memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent" for both, so the actual memory performance will vary with the host platform rather than being a fixed property of the GPU itself.

Neither part has any nearest rival entries in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs. The percentile field is identical, which suggests that the database treats both as mid-pack performers despite their specification differences. The average benchmark score of zero for both parts means no synthetic or game benchmark results have been recorded yet, so the percentile ranking may reflect expected positioning rather than measured performance.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split between the two parts based on workload demands. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is the higher-throughput option by every measurable compute metric. Its 3.942 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate, and 52.80 GPixel/s pixel rate place it well ahead of the 4 Xe part in raw rendering capability. The 65 W TDP indicates that this part is intended for laptops with more generous thermal and power budgets, where sustained performance matters more than efficiency.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is the efficiency-oriented design. Its 25 W TDP is less than half that of the 112EU part, and it still manages a 2300 MHz boost clock, which is 4.5% higher than the 112EU part. The 4 Xe part also includes 4 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the 112EU part's recorded data. For workloads that benefit from ray tracing acceleration, the 4 Xe part has a capability the 112EU part does not list. Its FP32 throughput of 2.355 TFLOPS is lower, but so is its power draw.

The architectural generation gap matters here. The 112EU part uses the Xe-LPG architecture on a 10 nm node, while the 4 Xe part uses Xe3-LPG on a 3 nm node. The process node difference is significant: 3 nm is a much denser and more power-efficient node than 10 nm. That explains how the 4 Xe part can achieve a higher boost clock at 25 W than the 112EU part achieves at 65 W. The 112EU part is from the Meteor Lake generation, released 2023-12-13, while the 4 Xe part is from the Panther Lake generation, released 2026-01-26. The newer part benefits from two additional years of process and architecture development.

The API support also differs. The 4 Xe part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the 112EU part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation on the 4 Xe part indicates support for a newer feature set in the DirectX 12 family, which may matter for games that require 12_2 features. The 112EU part's 12_1 support is a step below that in the DirectX 12 hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile delivers 3.942 TFLOPS FP32, which is 67.4% higher than the 2.355 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile.

Q: Does either part support ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile lists 4 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has no ray tracing core count recorded in the database.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz, which is 4.5% higher than the 2200 MHz boost of the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile. Both parts have a 300 MHz base clock.

Q: How do the power envelopes compare?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has a TDP of 65 W, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W. The 112EU part uses 2.6x the power of the 4 Xe part.

Q: Which part has more texture mapping units?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has 56 TMUs, compared to 32 TMUs on the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, a 75% higher count.

Q: Do both parts use the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both use System Shared memory with System Shared size, type, and bus width, and System Dependent bandwidth. Neither has dedicated VRAM.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The shading unit count is 896 for the 112EU part versus 512 for the 4 Xe part. The TMU count is 56 against 32. The ROP count is 24 against 16. The pixel rate is 52.80 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 3.942 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS. The FP16 throughput is 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1). The boost clock is 2200 MHz versus 2300 MHz. The TDP is 65 W versus 25 W. The ray tracing core count is not recorded for the 112EU part, but is 4 for the 4 Xe part. The bus interface is "Ring Bus" for the 112EU part and "IGP" for the 4 Xe part. The power connector is not recorded for the 112EU part and is "None" for the 4 Xe part. Both parts share the same base clock of 300 MHz, the same System Shared memory configuration, the same OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 support, the same IGP slot width, the same "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, and the same "Active" production status.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is built on the Meteor Lake chip using the Xe-LPG architecture on a 10 nm process node from Intel. Its generation is listed as "Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake)". The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process node, also from Intel. Its generation is "Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake)". The process node difference is a 7 nm gap, which is a major architectural distinction between the two generations.

The 112EU part has a predecessor listed as "HD Graphics-M", while the 4 Xe part has no predecessor recorded. Both parts have no successor recorded. The release dates differ by more than two years: 2023-12-13 for the 112EU part and 2026-01-26 for the 4 Xe part. The 4 Xe part has 4 ray tracing cores, a feature the 112EU part does not list. The DirectX support differs: the 112EU part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 4 Xe part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 API support.

The transistor count and die size are recorded as "unknown" for the 4 Xe part and are not recorded for the 112EU part. The foundry for both is Intel. The 4 Xe part lists no power connector, consistent with its 25 W TDP, while the 112EU part has no power connector data. The bus interface transition from "Ring Bus" on the 112EU part to "IGP" on the 4 Xe part reflects the architectural shift between generations.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile wins in every throughput-oriented metric. It delivers 67.4% higher FP32 compute, 67.4% higher texture rate, and 43.5% higher pixel rate compared to the 4 Xe part. It has 75% more shading units, 75% more TMUs, and 50% more ROPs. For any workload that is bound by raw rasterization throughput or general compute performance, the 112EU part is the stronger choice. The 65 W TDP indicates the host system must be able to supply and dissipate that power, which typically means larger laptops or those with dedicated cooling solutions.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in efficiency and feature support. Its 25 W TDP is less than 40% of the 112EU part's power budget, while still achieving a 4.5% higher boost clock. The 3 nm process node gives it a significant density and efficiency advantage over the 10 nm node of the 112EU part. The 4 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced workloads, a capability not listed for the 112EU part. The DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support enables a newer DirectX feature set compared to the DirectX 12 (12_1) of the 112EU part. For thin-and-light systems with limited cooling and battery capacity, the 4 Xe part is the only viable option between the two.

The use-case split is therefore clear from the recorded data. Systems that prioritize maximum frame throughput, higher resolution rendering, or compute-heavy tasks should look to the 112EU part, provided the 65 W power envelope is acceptable. Systems that prioritize battery life, portability, and ray tracing support should look to the 4 Xe part, accepting a 40.3% reduction in FP32 throughput as the trade-off for a 61.5% reduction in TDP. Both parts occupy the 50th percentile in the database's GPU ranking, and neither has recorded benchmark scores yet, so these conclusions are drawn entirely from the specification-level metrics.