Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile vs Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two integrated graphics processors. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, with no nearest rivals listed and no win counts registered for either side. The absence of measured data means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural specifications and computed throughput figures captured in the database.

The most decisive gap appears in raw compute output. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile produces 307.2 GFLOPS. That places the Arc part at roughly 4.2 times the single-precision throughput of the older UHD solution. In FP16 work, the Arc unit reaches 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 614.4 GFLOPS (2:1) for the UHD part, again a factor of about 4.2. These figures come directly from the architecture's execution resources and clock speeds, not from synthetic workloads, so they represent the theoretical ceiling for each design.

Pixel throughput tells a similar story. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile achieves 20.00 GPixel/s, compared to 4.800 GPixel/s for the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile. That is a 4.17x advantage in fill rate. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 40.00 GTexel/s versus 9.600 GTexel/s, a 4.17x difference. These ratios are consistent across all four throughput metrics, which indicates the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent.

Clock behavior separates the two as well. Both start at a 300 MHz base clock, but the Arc part boosts to 2500 MHz, while the UHD part tops out at 1200 MHz. The boost clock difference alone accounts for a 2.08x scaling factor, and when combined with the Arc part's doubled shading units, texture units, and ROPs, the full 4.17x throughput gap emerges naturally from the numbers.

Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so percentile placement sits at 50 for both against the full GPU database. That neutral percentile reflects missing data rather than parity in actual performance. The specification sheet, however, shows no ambiguity about which design has more execution capacity.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins in every measurable throughput category recorded in the database. Its 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs double the corresponding resources of the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile, which carries 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Doubled resources plus a 2500 MHz boost clock versus 1200 MHz produces the 4.17x advantage across pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute.

The Arc part also includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile specification. The database records no RT core count for the UHD part, which means the Arc design can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads while the UHD part cannot. This is a categorical difference, not a scaling difference.

The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile does hold one advantage: power consumption. The database lists its TDP at 15 W, while the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile draws 25 W. For systems where thermal headroom and battery life take priority over graphics capability, the lower TDP of the UHD part represents a genuine trade-off. The Arc part consumes 10 W more to deliver its substantially higher throughput.

The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile also uses a Ring Bus interface, while the Arc part uses an IGP bus interface. In the database's recorded fields, this is a bus architecture difference without measured performance consequences, but it does reflect a different integration approach on the host chip.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and process nodes. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation. The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses Generation 12.2 architecture on a 10 nm process and belongs to the HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake) generation. The process node difference from 10 nm to 3 nm is substantial and explains how the Arc part fits 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 RT cores into a 25 W envelope while running a 2500 MHz boost clock.

The chip names confirm the generation gap: Wildcat Lake for the Arc part, Raptor Lake for the UHD part. Both are Intel foundry products, as the database lists Intel as the manufacturer and foundry for each.

Memory architecture is shared in concept. Both use System Shared memory for size, type, and bus width, with bandwidth marked as System Dependent. Neither has dedicated VRAM, so both rely on the host system's memory subsystem. The database records no discrete memory capacity or bus width for either part.

API support differs in one meaningful way. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both list OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The 12_2 feature level on the Arc part enables the hardware ray tracing support reflected in its 2 RT cores, while the UHD part's 12_1 level stops short of that capability.

The production status for both is Active, meaning neither is discontinued according to the database. The release dates differ: the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile launched on 2023-01-03, while the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is dated 2026-04-15. The database lists the UHD part's successor as Arc Graphics-M, which aligns with the Arc part being the newer design. The Arc part's predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-M, closing the generational loop.

Neither part carries a launch MSRP in the database, and neither has listed dimensions, power connectors, or a suggested PSU. Both are IGP solutions with display outputs marked as Portable Device Dependent, meaning they are intended for mobile platforms where the display path depends on the host laptop design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile delivers 307.2 GFLOPS. The Arc part has roughly 4.2 times the single-precision throughput.

Q: Does the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile support ray tracing?

A: No. The database records no ray tracing cores for the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile includes 2 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes the hardware ray tracing feature level.

Q: What are the power requirements of each GPU?

A: The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W, while the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile has a TDP of 15 W. The Arc part draws 10 W more under its rated power envelope.

Q: Do both GPUs use dedicated video memory?

A: No. Both use System Shared memory for size, type, and bus width, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent. Neither has dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile boosts to 2500 MHz, while the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile boosts to 1200 MHz. Both start from a 300 MHz base clock.

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

A: The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is built on a 3 nm process, while the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile is built on a 10 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile holds a 4.17x advantage in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute over the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile. It doubles the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, boosts more than twice as high, adds 2 ray tracing cores, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate. For any workload that touches the GPU, the Arc part is the substantially stronger choice.

The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile's only recorded advantage is its 15 W TDP versus 25 W. That 10 W difference matters for thin-and-light laptops where cooling and battery capacity are constrained. For office documents, web browsing, and video playback, the lower-power part may be sufficient, and the power savings are real.

The architecture gap reinforces the compute gap. A 3 nm Xe3-LPG design from the Wildcat Lake generation versus a 10 nm Generation 12.2 design from Raptor Lake is not a close matchup. The newer part benefits from a smaller process, a newer architecture, and a higher boost clock, all of which appear in the recorded specifications.

For buyers choosing between these two in a mobile system, the decision hinges on workload and power budget. If the system needs any 3D capability beyond basic desktop output, the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 4.17x the throughput and adds ray tracing support. If absolute minimum power draw is the priority and graphics work is limited to 2D or light video, the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses 10 W less.

The database lists the UHD part's successor as Arc Graphics-M, which confirms Intel positions the Arc line as the replacement for the older UHD mobile graphics. The performance figures in the specification sheet support that positioning.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile | Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile |

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

| Chip | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Generation 12.2 |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) | HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Boost Clock | 2500 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Shading Units | 256 | 128 |

| TMUs | 16 | 8 |

| ROPs | 8 | 4 |

| RT Cores | 2 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 20.00 GPixel/s | 4.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 40.00 GTexel/s | 9.600 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,280.0 GFLOPS | 307.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) | 614.4 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | Ring Bus |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2023-01-03 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-M | null |

| Successor | null | Arc Graphics-M |

Base clock, memory configuration, OpenGL, Vulkan, display outputs, and production status are identical across both parts. The base clock sits at 300 MHz for both, memory is System Shared for both, both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, both are marked Active in production status, and both list Portable Device Dependent display outputs.