Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two products compared in this database entry?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile, an integrated GPU from the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation, and the NVIDIA H200 NVL, a server accelerator from the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation.

Q: Which product has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL records an average benchmark score of 334,891 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has no recorded benchmark score in the database.

Q: How does the H200 NVL compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The H200 NVL sits 3.1% behind the NVIDIA B200, 5.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X, 9.4% behind the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, and 13.2% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S.

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

A: The Intel chip (Wildcat Lake) is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA chip (GH100) uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What memory configurations do the two products use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA H200 NVL uses 141 GB of HBM3e memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.89 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both products support the same APIs?

A: No. The Intel GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA H200 NVL lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, a low-power graphics architecture designed for integrated use. Its chip, Wildcat Lake, is manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel. The GPU integrates 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The memory subsystem is entirely system shared, meaning the GPU relies on the host system's main memory for both capacity and bandwidth. The pixel rate reaches 20.00 GPixel/s, the texture rate is 40.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is rated at 1,280.0 GFLOPS. FP16 throughput is 2.560 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The power envelope is 25 W, and the slot width is listed as IGP, meaning it is integrated into the processor package. Display outputs are portable device dependent, and the bus interface is also IGP.

The NVIDIA H200 NVL is built on the Hopper architecture, and its chip, GH100, is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die contains 80,000 million transistors across an 814 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The GPU includes 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. Base clock is 1365 MHz, boost clock is 1785 MHz, and the memory clock is 1593 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective data rate. Memory consists of 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.89 TB/s of bandwidth. Pixel rate is 42.84 GPixel/s, texture rate is 942.5 GTexel/s, FP32 performance is 60.32 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 120.6 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The board is dual-slot with an 8-pin EPS power connector, a suggested PSU of 1000 W, and a TDP of 600 W. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface and has no display outputs. Physical dimensions are 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

The architectural gulf is large. The Intel part is a compact integrated GPU with a 3 nm process, ray tracing support, and a full graphics API stack. The NVIDIA part is a compute-focused server accelerator with tensor cores, HBM3e memory, and no graphics API support listed. The Intel chip has no tensor cores listed, while the NVIDIA chip has no ray tracing cores listed. The Intel GPU's transistor count and die size are unknown in the database, contrasting with the fully disclosed GH100 die.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not include direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA H200 NVL. The Intel GPU has no recorded benchmark scores, and its percentile rank among all GPUs is 50. The NVIDIA H200 NVL, by contrast, has a single recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

Without a recorded score for the Intel part, the comparison rests on the NVIDIA side's position against its nearest rivals. The H200 NVL's average score of 334,891 is 3.1% lower than the NVIDIA B200's 345,482, and 9.4% lower than the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC's 369,831. It is 5.3% higher than the AMD Instinct MI300X's 317,994 and 13.2% higher than the NVIDIA L40S's 295,763. These deltas place the H200 NVL in a tight cluster at the top of the server accelerator range, slightly behind the newest B-series parts but clearly ahead of the MI300X and L40S.

The Intel GPU's percentile rank of 50 indicates it sits at the median of all GPUs, but the absence of a numerical score prevents any direct percentage comparison with the H200 NVL. The data shows that the NVIDIA part operates in an entirely different performance tier, one where even its closest rivals are within a single-digit percentage margin.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every measurable specification category. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA H200 NVL uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. Transistor count is unknown for the Intel chip, while the GH100 die contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die with a density of 98.3M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Intel GPU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The NVIDIA GPU has a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz. The Intel memory clock is listed as system shared, while the NVIDIA memory clock is 1593 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ. The Intel part uses system shared memory of system shared type, with system shared bus width and system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The Intel GPU has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA GPU has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores, with no RT cores listed. Pixel rate is 20.00 GPixel/s for Intel versus 42.84 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 40.00 GTexel/s versus 942.5 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,280.0 GFLOPS versus 60.32 TFLOPS. FP16 is 2.560 TFLOPS versus 120.6 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Intel TDP is 25 W with an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and an IGP bus interface. The NVIDIA TDP is 600 W with a dual-slot form factor, an 8-pin EPS power connector, a suggested PSU of 1000 W, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The Intel GPU has no listed dimensions, while the NVIDIA board measures 267 mm by 111 mm.

Display and API support differ completely. The Intel GPU has portable device dependent display outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA GPU has no display outputs and lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Release timing and production status also differ. The Intel part is dated 2026-04-15, while the NVIDIA part is dated 2024-11-17. Both are listed as active in production. The Intel predecessor is HD Graphics-M, while the NVIDIA predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA H200 NVL wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 60.32 TFLOPS is roughly 47 times the Intel GPU's 1,280.0 GFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 120.6 TFLOPS is similarly dominant. The texture rate of 942.5 GTexel/s versus 40.00 GTexel/s and the pixel rate of 42.84 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s further confirm the NVIDIA part's lead in fill-rate-bound workloads. The 141 GB HBM3e memory pool with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth is in a different class from the Intel GPU's system-shared memory, which is system dependent in bandwidth.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is a fraction of the NVIDIA part's 600 W, and its IGP form factor requires no power connectors or separate board. The Intel GPU supports a full modern graphics API stack, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, making it usable for client-side rendering workloads. The NVIDIA part exposes no graphics APIs, targeting compute acceleration instead. The Intel GPU also has ray tracing cores, which the NVIDIA part does not list.

The benchmark data reinforces the separation. The H200 NVL records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891 and a 100th percentile rank, while the Intel GPU has no score and a 50th percentile rank. In the server accelerator segment, the H200 NVL is positioned between the B200 and the MI300X, with deltas of -3.1% and +5.3% respectively.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the NVIDIA H200 NVL as the dominant compute accelerator. Its 334,891 Geekbench OpenCL score, 100th percentile rank, 60.32 TFLOPS FP32, and 4.89 TB/s memory bandwidth place it at the top of the database's GPU hierarchy. Its nearest rivals are all within a single-digit percentage margin, confirming that it competes at the highest tier of server accelerators. For compute-intensive tasks such as large-scale matrix operations, the 528 tensor cores and 141 GB HBM3e memory provide the resources the Intel part cannot match.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is a different product class entirely. Its 25 W TDP, IGP slot width, and system-shared memory are designed for portable devices, not server racks. Its 256 shading units and 2 ray tracing cores, paired with DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support, make it a graphics-oriented solution. The 3 nm process at Intel and the 2500 MHz boost clock show an emphasis on power efficiency within a small package.

The choice between them depends on workload type, not on direct competition. The H200 NVL is the only option when the task is high-throughput compute with massive memory capacity. The Intel GPU is the only option when the requirement is an integrated graphics solution with modern API support inside a 25 W envelope. The database shows no benchmark overlap between the two, and the specification gap is so wide that any direct comparison is limited to positioning rather than performance equivalence.