Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data draws a sharp line between these two parts. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has no benchmark entries in the database, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has two recorded scores. Every measurable performance comparison therefore favors the NVIDIA part. The Intel solution is best understood as an integrated graphics block inside a low-power mobile chip, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada is a discrete workstation card with a full suite of compute and rendering capabilities.

The Intel part wins on integration and power envelope. It sits as an IGP with a 25 W TDP, uses system shared memory, and requires no power connectors. That makes it suitable for thin, portable devices where a discrete card cannot physically fit. The NVIDIA card, by contrast, draws 70 W, occupies a dual-slot profile, and requires a 250 W suggested power supply. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is not competing for the same chassis space; it is a standalone add-in board.

The NVIDIA card wins decisively on raw throughput. Its shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units outnumber the Intel part by wide margins. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada also carries dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, neither of which the Intel iGPU can match in count. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile does include 2 ray tracing cores, but the NVIDIA part has 48. The Intel part has no tensor core entry in the database, while the NVIDIA card has 192 tensor cores.

The use-case split is clear from the architecture alone. For AI inference, machine learning workloads, and ray-traced rendering, the NVIDIA card is the only viable option in this pairing. For basic display output, lightweight media tasks, and power-constrained mobile designs, the Intel part fills a role that the NVIDIA card cannot, because the NVIDIA card is not an integrated solution.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different manufacturers, fabs, and design philosophies. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured by Intel on a 3 nm process. The chip is called Wildcat Lake and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process, with the AD104 chip. The NVIDIA part is part of the Workstation Ada generation and lists its predecessor as Workstation Ampere.

Transistor counts differ enormously. The NVIDIA AD104 packs 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The Intel part lists its transistor count and die size as unknown in the database. This asymmetry means the NVIDIA card carries far more compute logic, but the Intel part benefits from a newer, denser process node.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with a system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width. The NVIDIA card has dedicated 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 280.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Dedicated memory removes contention with the CPU and provides predictable bandwidth for professional workloads.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 2500 MHz. The NVIDIA card has a 720 MHz base clock and a 1560 MHz boost clock. The Intel part relies on a high boost clock to extract performance from a small shader array, while the NVIDIA card uses a lower clock but far more execution units.

The feature set diverges on compute accelerators. The Intel part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. The NVIDIA card also supports 1:1 FP16 throughput at 19.17 TFLOPS, matching its FP32 rate, while the Intel part delivers FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, reaching 2.560 TFLOPS against 1,280.0 GFLOPS FP32.

The interface and physical design differ as well. The Intel part is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and a PCIe interface listed as IGP. The NVIDIA card is a dual-slot unit, 168 mm long and 69 mm tall, using PCIe 4.0 x16, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and no power connectors on the card itself. Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products. However, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has two recorded Geekbench scores. It scores 124,812 in Geekbench OpenCL and 109,364 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has no benchmark scores recorded at all, so its performance cannot be quantified from the database.

The NVIDIA card's average benchmark score is 117,088, and it sits at the 95th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GB10 with an average score of 117,393 and a delta of -0.3%, meaning the RTX 4000 SFF Ada trails that part by less than half a percent. It also sits behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7700, which scores 118,976, a 1.6% advantage for the AMD card. The NVIDIA card leads the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 2.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8%. These deltas show the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation competing in a tight cluster at the top of the workstation GPU market.

The Intel part, with a 50th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 0, does not appear in the same performance class. The percentile figure of 50 indicates it sits at the median of all GPUs in the database, but with no recorded scores, its absolute placement is not measurable from the available data.

The biggest wins in this comparison all belong to the NVIDIA card. It has 24 times the shading units, 12 times the TMUs, 8 times the ROPs, and 24 times the ray tracing cores. Its FP32 throughput of 19.17 TFLOPS is roughly 15 times the Intel part's 1,280.0 GFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 19.17 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio is about 7.5 times the Intel part's 2.560 TFLOPS at 2:1. The NVIDIA card also has 20 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory versus the shared, system dependent memory of the Intel part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 6,144 shading units. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 256 shading units.

Q: Does the Intel part have tensor cores?

A: The database lists no tensor cores for the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 192 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How does the NVIDIA card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation trails the NVIDIA GB10 by 0.3% and the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 by 1.6%. It leads the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 2.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8%.

Q: What process nodes do the two chips use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process from Intel. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Are both parts currently in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation are listed with an active production status in the database.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ on nearly every major specification field. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm Intel process, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace on a 5 nm TSMC process. The Intel chip is Wildcat Lake, and the NVIDIA chip is AD104. The NVIDIA die is 294 mm² with 35,800 million transistors and a density of 121.8M per mm²; the Intel die size and transistor count are unknown.

Clock speeds differ: Intel runs at 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 720 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost. Memory differs completely: Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses 20 GB GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. Intel has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 48 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA also has 192 tensor cores; Intel has none listed. Pixel rate is 20.00 GPixel/s for Intel and 99.84 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 40.00 GTexel/s for Intel and 299.5 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 1,280.0 GFLOPS for Intel and 19.17 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 2.560 TFLOPS at 2:1 for Intel and 19.17 TFLOPS at 1:1 for NVIDIA.

Power and physical specifications diverge. Intel has a 25 W TDP, no slot width, no power connectors, and an IGP bus interface. NVIDIA has a 70 W TDP, dual-slot width, no power connectors on the card, a 250 W suggested PSU, and a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. NVIDIA measures 168 mm by 69 mm. Display outputs are portable device dependent for Intel and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for NVIDIA.

Release dates differ substantially. The Intel part has a release date of April 15, 2026. The NVIDIA card was released on March 20, 2023. The Intel predecessor is HD Graphics-M, while the NVIDIA predecessor is Workstation Ampere and its successor is Blackwell PRO W.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward split. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the only choice for compute-heavy professional workloads. It has 24 times the shading units, 24 times the ray tracing cores, 192 tensor cores, 20 GB of dedicated GDDR6, and a 95th percentile ranking among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 117,088 places it next to the NVIDIA GB10 and AMD Radeon PRO W7700, with deltas under 2%. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 19.17 TFLOPS puts it in an entirely different performance class from the Intel part.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is not a competitor in that class. It has no recorded benchmarks, no tensor cores, shared memory, and a 25 W TDP. Its role is integrated graphics in a mobile chip, where its 2500 MHz boost clock and 3 nm process help it deliver basic graphics in a power envelope the NVIDIA card cannot approach. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation requires a 250 W suggested power supply and dual-slot space, which rules it out for the same devices.

The database shows one product with measurable performance and one without. The NVIDIA card's 95th percentile ranking, its benchmark scores of 124,812 in OpenCL and 109,364 in Vulkan, and its tight competition with the GB10 and Radeon PRO W7700 confirm it as a high-end workstation part. The Intel part's 50th percentile ranking and absence of scores indicate it belongs to the integrated graphics tier. Buyers needing ray tracing, tensor acceleration, or large dedicated memory pools should select the NVIDIA card. Buyers constrained to an integrated, low-power part with no add-in card slot will use the Intel solution, but the data provides no performance evidence to recommend it beyond its integration advantages.