Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER Comparison

Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER represent two vastly different segments of the graphics hardware landscape. The database contains benchmark data only for the NVIDIA part, while the Intel integrated solution has no recorded benchmark scores. The comparison is therefore defined by architectural specifications, physical characteristics, and the measured performance of the RTX 4080 SUPER against its nearest rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not include any head-to-head benchmark entries between these two products. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has an empty benchmark array, with an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, by contrast, carries ten individual benchmark scores and an average benchmark score of 54,209. Its percentile rank is 86, indicating that it sits above the vast majority of GPUs in the database.

The RTX 4080 SUPER shows its strongest result in the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 260,075. Its OpenCL score is 219,065. These two figures reveal a substantial compute capability, with Vulkan performance exceeding OpenCL by roughly 19 percent. The PassMark G3D score is 34,245, while the PassMark GPU Compute score is 19,822. The compute score is approximately 58 percent of the G3D score, which points to a configuration that balances rasterization and general-purpose compute duties.

The remaining PassMark scores are much lower in absolute terms. The DirectX 9 result is 381, DirectX 11 is 301, DirectX 10 is 193, and DirectX 12 is 134. The G2D score is 1,270. These figures confirm that synthetic legacy API tests produce lower numbers than modern workload tests, a pattern typical of high-end discrete GPUs. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6,600 provides an additional modern API data point.

Comparing the RTX 4080 SUPER to its nearest rivals in the database, the gap is narrow. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 has an average score of 54,247, which is 0.1 percent higher than the SUPER model. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X averages 54,828, 1.1 percent higher. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB averages 55,698, 2.7 percent higher. The AMD Radeon 8060S averages 55,757, 2.8 percent higher. The RTX 4080 SUPER is therefore positioned at the lower end of its immediate competitive cluster, trailing all four recorded rivals by small margins.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has no rivals listed and no scores to compare. The data cannot provide a meaningful numeric comparison between the two products. The analysis must rely on architectural and specification differences.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4080 SUPER wins in every measurable performance category because it is the only product with recorded scores. It delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 6,600, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 260,075, and a PassMark G3D score of 34,245. These are the strongest data points available in the comparison.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins in power efficiency and physical integration. Its thermal design power is 25 W, compared to 320 W for the RTX 4080 SUPER. The Intel part uses no power connectors and is an integrated graphics processor, meaning it occupies no expansion slot and requires no separate power supply recommendation. The NVIDIA part is a triple-slot card, uses a 16-pin connector, and carries a suggested power supply rating of 700 W.

The Intel solution also holds an advantage in production status. It is listed as Active, while the RTX 4080 SUPER is End-of-life. The NVIDIA part has a successor, the GeForce 50 series, while the Intel part has no successor listed. For systems requiring a current integrated graphics solution, the Intel product remains in production and available in the database.

The RTX 4080 SUPER has a clear advantage in memory resources. It has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus with 736.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part shares system memory with no dedicated capacity, type, or bandwidth figures of its own. The bus width is listed as system shared, and bandwidth is system dependent.

Architecture Differences

The two products use different manufacturing processes and foundries. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, using the Wildcat Lake chip and the Xe3-LPG architecture. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, with the AD103 chip and the Ada Lovelace architecture. It belongs to the GeForce 40 generation.

Transistor counts differ sharply. The NVIDIA chip has 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip has unknown transistor count and die size, so no density figure can be stated.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA part. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 10,240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, 112 render output units, 80 ray tracing cores, and 320 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. Tensor core count for the Intel part is not listed.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2,500 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 2,295 MHz and a boost clock of 2,550 MHz. The NVIDIA boost is only 2 percent higher than the Intel boost, but the base clocks are far apart, with NVIDIA running nearly eight times higher at idle baseline.

Memory clocks are not directly comparable. The Intel memory clock is listed as system shared, while the NVIDIA memory clock is 1,438 MHz with 23 Gbps effective speed. The NVIDIA memory type is GDDR6X with a 256-bit bus.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the scale difference. The Intel part produces 20.00 GPixel/s and 40.00 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part produces 285.6 GPixel/s and 816.0 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA pixel rate is about 14 times higher, and the texture rate is about 20 times higher.

Floating point performance shows a similar gap. The Intel FP32 is 1,280.0 GFLOPS, or 1.28 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA FP32 is 52.22 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA FP16 is also 52.22 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel FP16 is 2.560 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

API support is identical in both products. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part has a bus interface of IGP, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which product has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER has 80 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 2 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each product?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus with 736.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the thermal design power figures compare?

A: The Intel part is rated at 25 W. The NVIDIA part is rated at 320 W.

Q: What are the recorded benchmark results for the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile?

A: The database contains no benchmark scores for the Intel part. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile rank is 50.

Q: What are the recorded benchmark results for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The database records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6,600, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 219,065, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 260,075, PassMark DirectX 10 at 193, DirectX 11 at 301, DirectX 12 at 134, DirectX 9 at 381, G2D at 1,270, G3D at 34,245, and GPU Compute at 19,822.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER trails the RTX 4080 by 0.1 percent, the Radeon Pro W5700X by 1.1 percent, the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB by 2.7 percent, and the Radeon 8060S by 2.8 percent in average benchmark score.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is the only product in this comparison with benchmark results. Its average score of 54,209 and its 86th percentile rank place it in the upper tier of the database, though it sits slightly behind four nearby rivals by margins between 0.1 and 2.8 percent. It delivers 52.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 80 ray tracing cores, and 16 GB of GDDR6X memory. It requires a 700 W power supply and a triple-slot expansion slot.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has no benchmark scores, making any performance claim unsupported by the recorded data. Its strengths are structural: a 3 nm process, a 25 W thermal design power, no external power connectors, and an integrated form factor that requires no slot. It is an active product with no successor, while the NVIDIA part is end-of-life with a GeForce 50 series successor.

For a discrete desktop GPU with measured performance, the RTX 4080 SUPER is the only choice supported by benchmark data. For an integrated mobile graphics solution with minimal power draw, the Intel part fits that description. The database does not place them in the same performance class, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in the following recorded fields:

• Process node: Intel 3 nm versus NVIDIA 5 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Chip: Wildcat Lake versus AD103
• Architecture: Xe3-LPG versus Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) versus GeForce 40
• Transistors: unknown versus 45,900 million
• Die size: unknown versus 379 mm²
• Transistor density: not listed versus 121.1M per mm²
• Base clock: 300 MHz versus 2,295 MHz
• Boost clock: 2,500 MHz versus 2,550 MHz
• Memory clock: system shared versus 1,438 MHz, 23 Gbps effective
• Memory size: system shared versus 16 GB
• Memory type: system shared versus GDDR6X
• Bus width: system shared versus 256 bit
• Bandwidth: system dependent versus 736.3 GB/s
• Shading units: 256 versus 10,240
• TMUs: 16 versus 320
• ROPs: 8 versus 112
• Ray tracing cores: 2 versus 80
• Tensor cores: not listed versus 320
• Pixel rate: 20.00 GPixel/s versus 285.6 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 40.00 GTexel/s versus 816.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,280.0 GFLOPS versus 52.22 TFLOPS
• FP16: 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 52.22 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 25 W versus 320 W
• Slot width: IGP versus triple-slot
• Power connectors: none versus 1x 16-pin
• Suggested PSU: not listed versus 700 W
• Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions: not listed versus 310 mm length, 140 mm height, 61 mm width
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life
• Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2024-01-30
• Predecessor: HD Graphics-M versus GeForce 30
• Successor: none versus GeForce 50
• Launch MSRP: not listed versus 999 USD
• Average benchmark score: 0 versus 54,209
• Percentile: 50 versus 86