Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile and the NVIDIA H20 occupy completely different segments of the hardware landscape, and the recorded data reflects that separation clearly. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor built for portable devices, while the NVIDIA H20 is a server-class accelerator designed for datacenter deployment. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, so the differentiation must come from architectural capabilities rather than measured performance deltas.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile wins in the context of client-side graphics and display output. It carries a DirectX 12 (12_1) API rating, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, making it a functional graphics solution for a laptop or portable device. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," which means the iGPU can drive whatever panel the host device integrates. The H20, by contrast, has no display outputs at all and lists its APIs as N/A across DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Any workload that requires rendering to a screen belongs exclusively to the Intel part.

The NVIDIA H20 wins in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. Its FP32 output of 39.54 TFLOPS is roughly ten times the Intel part's 3.942 TFLOPS. Its FP16 output of 79.07 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS follows the same pattern. The H20 pairs that compute with 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel iGPU has no dedicated memory at all; it uses system shared memory with bandwidth that the database lists as "System Dependent." For large-scale data processing, AI inference, or training workloads, the H20 has the resources to hold and feed massive models, while the Intel part depends entirely on the host system's memory subsystem.

The H20 also carries 312 tensor cores, a feature class entirely absent from the Intel specification, which lists no tensor core count. That makes the H20 the only one of the two with dedicated hardware for matrix operations typical of neural network workloads. The Intel part has no such units listed.

Power and physical form factor further separate the two. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile runs at a 65 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), meaning it consumes no extra slot space in a chassis. The NVIDIA H20 consumes 500 W, requires a 900 W suggested PSU, and installs as an SXM Module. One is a component embedded into a mobile platform; the other is a standalone accelerator module that demands serious power delivery and cooling infrastructure.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different process nodes, different foundries, and different architectural lineages. Intel builds the Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile on its own 10 nm process at Intel foundries, using the Xe-LPG architecture derived from the Meteor Lake chip. The chip belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation. NVIDIA builds the H20 on a 5 nm process at TSMC, using the Hopper architecture built around the GH100 chip. The H20 is part of the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation.

The transistor budgets differ by orders of magnitude. The H20 packs 80,000 million transistors onto an 814 mm² die, for a density of 98.3M transistors per mm². The Intel part lists no transistor count, die size, or density in the database, so a direct comparison on that axis is impossible from the recorded facts. What is clear is that the H20 is a massive chip physically, while the Intel iGPU is small enough and low-power enough to live inside a mobile processor package.

Shader resources diverge sharply. The Intel part has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The H20 has more than eleven times the shading units and more than five times the TMUs. Both parts land on 24 ROPs, but the pixel rates differ slightly: Intel achieves 52.80 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA's 47.52 GPixel/s. The H20's higher clock speeds do not fully compensate for the identical ROP count at a lower boost clock, so the Intel part actually leads in pixel throughput.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel iGPU runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 2200 MHz. The H20 runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. The Intel part has a much wider clock range, starting very low for power saving and boosting high for burst workloads. The H20 sits in a narrow, high-frequency band suited to sustained server operation.

The H20 integrates 312 tensor cores; the Intel part lists no tensor core count. Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 across a 6144-bit interface at 4.03 TB/s, with memory clocked at 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective). The Intel part uses system shared memory with no dedicated bus width, no dedicated capacity, and bandwidth that the database lists as "System Dependent."

The bus interfaces reflect their intended homes. The Intel iGPU connects via Ring Bus, an internal interconnect typical of integrated graphics. The H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, a high-bandwidth external interface for a standalone accelerator card. The H20 also lists a predecessor (Server Ada) and successor (Server Blackwell), while the Intel part lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-M. Both are marked as Active in production status.

API support is another clear divider. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 lists N/A for all three, confirming it is not intended for conventional graphics API workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile and the NVIDIA H20, and neither part has an average benchmark score or rival list populated. That absence is itself informative: these two products are not competitors in any measurable sense, and no synthetic test in the database pits them against each other. The comparison therefore rests on the specification-level figures recorded for each.

The largest single numerical gap is in FP32 compute. The H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS against the Intel part's 3.942 TFLOPS. That is roughly a 903% advantage for the NVIDIA part. In FP16, the H20's 79.07 TFLOPS against 7.885 TFLOPS represents a similar ratio. Texture throughput follows the same direction: the H20's 617.8 GTexel/s is about five times the Intel part's 123.2 GTexel/s.

Memory bandwidth is the most lopsided category. The H20's 4.03 TB/s versus the Intel part's "System Dependent" bandwidth is not a numeric comparison, but the qualitative difference is enormous. The H20 has 96 GB of dedicated HBM3; the Intel part has zero dedicated memory. Any workload that streams large datasets will favor the H20 by a margin far larger than the compute ratios suggest.

There is one category where the Intel part wins outright. Pixel rate comes in at 52.80 GPixel/s for the Intel iGPU versus 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20. That 5.28 GPixel/s difference means the Intel part fills frames slightly faster despite having the same 24 ROPs, thanks to its 2200 MHz boost clock versus the H20's 1980 MHz. It is a narrow win, but it is the only measured throughput metric where the integrated part leads.

Clock behavior also favors the Intel part in one narrow sense. The 2200 MHz boost clock on the Intel iGPU exceeds the H20's 1980 MHz boost by 220 MHz. That higher boost ceiling helps explain the pixel rate advantage. The H20's base clock of 1830 MHz, however, is far above the Intel part's 300 MHz base, showing that the server chip maintains high frequency even at idle.

The tensor core count is a category that only the H20 participates in, with 312 units. The Intel part lists none. For FP16 matrix workloads that leverage tensor cores, the H20's effective throughput would exceed its raw 79.07 TFLOPS figure, though the database does not record a specific tensor performance number.

Power efficiency cuts the other way. The Intel part delivers its 3.942 TFLOPS within a 65 W TDP. The H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS within a 500 W TDP. On a per-watt basis, the Intel part produces about 0.0606 TFLOPS per watt, while the H20 produces about 0.0791 TFLOPS per watt. The H20 is roughly 30% more efficient in FP32 per watt according to these figures, despite its much higher absolute consumption.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA H20, at 39.54 TFLOPS, delivers roughly ten times the FP32 throughput of the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile, which records 3.942 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The database lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support for the Intel part. The NVIDIA H20 lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has no dedicated memory; it uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent."

Q: Can the NVIDIA H20 output video to a display?

A: No. The H20 lists "No outputs" for display outputs, and its API support is N/A. The Intel part lists "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, meaning it can drive the host device's display.

Q: What is the power consumption of each part?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has a 65 W TDP. The NVIDIA H20 has a 500 W TDP and carries a 900 W suggested PSU requirement.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA H20, which integrates 312 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile lists no tensor core count.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile | NVIDIA H20 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Xe-LPG | Hopper |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 80,000 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 814 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 98.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1830 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 1980 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 96 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | HBM3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 6144 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 4.03 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 9984 |

| TMUs | 56 | 312 |

| ROPs | 24 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | Not listed | 312 |

| Pixel Rate | 52.80 GPixel/s | 47.52 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 617.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.942 TFLOPS | 39.54 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) | 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 65 W | 500 W |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 900 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | SXM Module |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2023-12-13 | 2024-01-31 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-M | Server Ada |

| Successor | Not listed | Server Blackwell |

| Production Status | Active | Active |