Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. Both entries have empty benchmark result sets, and the wins tally for each stands at zero. This absence of recorded performance data means the two integrated graphics processors cannot be ranked against each other through measured frame rates or synthetic scores.

The percentile fields, however, place both at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. That equal standing suggests they occupy similar positions in the overall performance distribution, though the percentile alone does not quantify the gap between them. The Arc part carries a substantially larger compute configuration, which implies a significant performance advantage, but without recorded benchmark numbers, the database cannot confirm the scale of that difference.

What the data does show is the theoretical throughput ceiling for each. The Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile reaches 4.608 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Graphics 24EU Mobile tops out at 384.0 GFLOPS. That is a 12x gap in raw floating-point throughput, a ratio that would normally translate into dramatically different real-world results. Yet the absence of head-to-head measurements leaves the actual comparison unverified.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different Intel processor families and use different graphics architectures. The Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile is built on the Meteor Lake chip and uses the Xe-LPG architecture, classified under Arc Graphics-M generation. The Graphics 24EU Mobile is attached to the Twin Lake chip and uses the older Xe-LP architecture, classified under HD Graphics-T generation.

Both are fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, so the manufacturing node is identical. The transistor counts and die sizes are not recorded for the Arc part, while the Graphics 24EU lists both as unknown. Neither GPU has dedicated RT cores or tensor cores, so ray tracing and AI acceleration rely on the standard shader pipeline.

The execution unit counts differ sharply. The Arc part has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Graphics 24EU has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. That is a 5.33x difference in shading units, a 5.33x difference in TMUs, and an 8x difference in ROPs. These ratios define the theoretical fill-rate ceiling: the Arc part delivers 72.00 GPixel/s pixel throughput and 144.0 GTexel/s texture throughput, against 4.000 GPixel/s and 12.00 GTexel/s for the smaller chip.

Clock speeds also diverge. The Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile runs at a 300 MHz base and boosts to 2250 MHz. The Graphics 24EU Mobile also starts at 300 MHz but boosts only to 1000 MHz. The combination of more execution units and a higher boost clock produces the FP32 and FP16 output differences noted earlier: 4.608 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS for FP32, and 9.216 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS for FP16, both using a 2:1 ratio.

Memory architecture is identical in form: both use system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. Neither has dedicated VRAM, so performance will scale with the host platform's memory subsystem. The bus interface for both is Ring Bus.

Power envelopes are not comparable. The Arc part carries a TDP of 28 W, while the Graphics 24EU is rated at 6 W. That 22 W difference reflects the larger compute array and higher clock target of the Arc part, but the database does not record whether the power draw translates into thermal or battery-life differences in actual devices.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs for both are listed as portable device dependent, meaning the available connectors depend on the laptop or handheld design. Both are IGP form factors, integrated into the processor package.

Release dates differ by roughly one year. The Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile was released on 2023-12-13, while the Graphics 24EU Mobile arrived on 2024-12-31. The Arc part lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-M, while the Graphics 24EU has no recorded predecessor.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile wins on every recorded compute metric. Its FP32 throughput is 12x higher, its pixel rate is 18x higher, and its texture rate is 12x higher. The boost clock advantage of 1250 MHz over the Graphics 24EU further separates the two in any workload that scales with shader frequency.

The Graphics 24EU Mobile wins on power consumption. Its 6 W TDP is less than a quarter of the Arc part's 28 W. For devices where battery life and thermal load are the primary constraints, the smaller GPU presents a clear advantage. The database does not record efficiency metrics such as performance per watt, so the exact trade-off cannot be quantified, but the power figures alone indicate the Graphics 24EU is designed for low-power environments.

The release date also favors the Graphics 24EU as a newer product, though newer does not necessarily mean faster in this comparison. The architecture difference suggests the Arc part uses a more recent graphics design despite being released earlier, as Xe-LPG is a distinct architecture from Xe-LP.

For gaming and graphics-intensive tasks, the Arc part's larger shader count, higher clocks, and greater fill rates point to superior performance. For basic desktop output, video playback, and light 2D workloads, the Graphics 24EU's lower power draw makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile delivers 4.608 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 12x higher than the 384.0 GFLOPS recorded for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W, while the Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W.

Q: Are there any recorded benchmark scores for either GPU?

A: No. The database shows no benchmark results for either GPU, and both have an average benchmark score of 0.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile boosts to 2250 MHz, while the Graphics 24EU Mobile boosts to 1000 MHz. Both have a 300 MHz base clock.

Q: Do both GPUs use dedicated video memory?

A: No. Both use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning they rely on the host system's RAM.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in the following recorded fields:

• Chip: Meteor Lake for the Arc part, Twin Lake for the Graphics 24EU.
• Architecture: Xe-LPG for the Arc part, Xe-LP for the Graphics 24EU.
• Generation: Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) for the Arc part, HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) for the Graphics 24EU.
• Transistors: Not recorded for the Arc part, unknown for the Graphics 24EU.
• Die size: Not recorded for the Arc part, unknown for the Graphics 24EU.
• Boost clock: 2250 MHz for the Arc part, 1000 MHz for the Graphics 24EU.
• Shading units: 1024 for the Arc part, 192 for the Graphics 24EU.
• TMUs: 64 for the Arc part, 12 for the Graphics 24EU.
• ROPs: 32 for the Arc part, 4 for the Graphics 24EU.
• Pixel rate: 72.00 GPixel/s for the Arc part, 4.000 GPixel/s for the Graphics 24EU.
• Texture rate: 144.0 GTexel/s for the Arc part, 12.00 GTexel/s for the Graphics 24EU.
• FP32 performance: 4.608 TFLOPS for the Arc part, 384.0 GFLOPS for the Graphics 24EU.
• FP16 performance: 9.216 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Arc part, 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) for the Graphics 24EU.
• TDP: 28 W for the Arc part, 6 W for the Graphics 24EU.
• Release date: 2023-12-13 for the Arc part, 2024-12-31 for the Graphics 24EU.
• Predecessor: HD Graphics-M for the Arc part, none recorded for the Graphics 24EU.

Fields that are identical include process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), base clock (300 MHz), memory configuration (system shared), bus interface (Ring Bus), display outputs (portable device dependent), API support (DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), slot width (IGP), and production status (Active).

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two very different products despite the shared Intel branding. The Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile is positioned for higher-performance integrated graphics work, as shown by its 1024 shading units, 2250 MHz boost clock, and 28 W power envelope. The Graphics 24EU Mobile is a low-power part, with 192 shading units, 1000 MHz boost, and 6 W TDP.

For anyone selecting a processor for gaming, 3D rendering, or GPU-accelerated compute, the Arc part has every measurable advantage: 12x FP32 throughput, 18x pixel rate, and 12x texture rate. The lack of recorded benchmark scores means the real-world impact of these differences is not quantified in the database, but the theoretical specs leave little room for doubt about which GPU is faster.

For ultra-portable devices where power draw is the limiting factor, the Graphics 24EU's 6 W TDP makes it the only viable option among the two, as the Arc part's 28 W requirement would demand more substantial cooling and battery capacity.

The equal 50th percentile ranking for both GPUs is curious given the large compute gap, but the percentile reflects the absence of benchmark data rather than actual equivalence. The database simply has no measurements to differentiate them.

The release dates show the Graphics 24EU came later, but the architecture difference suggests the Arc part uses a more capable graphics design. The data does not indicate any successor relationship between the two, so they likely serve separate market segments rather than competing directly for the same socket or device class.