Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear performance gap between the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA RTX A400, though the comparison is limited by the absence of direct head-to-head benchmark results. The NVIDIA RTX A400 carries the only available benchmark scores in the database, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 22,237. These results place the RTX A400 in the 35th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6,078 across all recorded tests.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, which means its percentile ranking of 50 is based on estimated positioning rather than measured results. This absence of direct measurements makes a true head-to-head comparison impossible from the available data. However, the specifications reveal significant differences in raw compute capability that favor the NVIDIA part.

In floating-point performance, the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile provides 1,280.0 GFLOPS, which converts to 1.28 TFLOPS. This means the NVIDIA GPU offers more than double the single-precision compute performance. The gap narrows in FP16, where the RTX A400 maintains its 2.706 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 2.560 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, representing a modest 5.7% deficit.

Pixel and texture throughput also favor the RTX A400, with a pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s for the Intel chip, a difference of roughly 41%. Texture rate shows a smaller gap, with 42.29 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 40.00 GTexel/s for Intel, a margin of about 5.7%.

The RTX A400's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance tier. It sits essentially level with the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6,077 points, a 0% delta, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 points, a -0.6% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 trails by 0.5%, and the AMD Radeon 760M trails by 1%. These figures indicate the RTX A400 performs in the entry-level discrete GPU segment, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile, as an integrated graphics processor, targets a different market position entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in every measurable category where specifications exist. Its 768 shading units vastly outnumber the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile's 256 shading units, a 3:1 ratio. Texture mapping units number 24 versus 16, and render output units number 16 versus 8. The RTX A400 also holds advantages in ray tracing cores, with 6 versus 2, and tensor cores, with 24 versus none listed for the Intel part.

Memory configuration separates these products decisively. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile relies on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, which means performance scales with the host platform's memory subsystem rather than dedicated VRAM. For workloads sensitive to memory bandwidth, the RTX A400's dedicated allocation provides a consistent baseline.

Clock speeds tell a mixed story. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2,500 MHz, while the RTX A400 runs at 1,417 MHz base and 1,762 MHz boost. The Intel GPU's higher boost clock suggests it can reach higher instantaneous frequencies in short bursts, but the NVIDIA GPU maintains a much higher floor across sustained loads.

Power consumption favors the integrated Intel solution at 25 W TDP versus 50 W for the RTX A400. The RTX A400 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Intel part has no such requirement. The Intel GPU uses an IGP slot width and no power connectors, while the RTX A400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors but requires the PCIe slot power. The RTX A400's form factor of 163 mm by 69 mm makes it a compact discrete card, whereas the Intel part is embedded in the processor package.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, using a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation based on the Wildcat Lake chip. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture on the GA107 chip, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process node. The difference in process technology, 3 nm versus 8 nm, gives Intel a significant density and efficiency advantage in theory, though the RTX A400's larger die compensates with more raw hardware.

The RTX A400 contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The Intel part's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, preventing direct density comparison. The RTX A400's predecessor is the Quadro Turing, and its successor is Workstation Ada, placing it in NVIDIA's professional workstation lineup. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M, marking it as a continuation of Intel's integrated graphics lineage.

Feature sets align on API support. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Ray tracing hardware exists on both, with the RTX A400 carrying 6 RT cores and the Intel part carrying 2. The RTX A400's 24 tensor cores provide dedicated AI acceleration hardware, which the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile lacks entirely according to the database.

Display outputs differ substantially. The RTX A400 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, making it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its integrated nature and reliance on the host device's display infrastructure. The bus interface also differs, with the RTX A400 using PCIe 4.0 x8 while the Intel part is integrated via IGP.

Release timing shows the RTX A400 launched on 2024-04-15, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is dated 2026-04-15, exactly two years later. Both parts remain in active production status. Neither product has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, more than double the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile's 1,280.0 GFLOPS. The RTX A400 also leads in pixel rate at 28.19 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s.

Q: How does memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning it draws from the host system's RAM.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W and uses no power connectors as an integrated GPU. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W, also uses no power connectors, but lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU supports more ray tracing and AI features?

A: The RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 2 RT cores and no listed tensor cores, so it lacks dedicated AI acceleration hardware.

Q: What does the RTX A400's benchmark performance indicate?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,844 in Geekbench OpenCL and 22,237 in Geekbench Vulkan, with a PassMark G3D score of 5,983. Its average benchmark score of 6,078 places it at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, roughly level with the GeForce MX230 and Iris Pro Graphics 6200.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same product generation?

A: No. The RTX A400 is a Workstation Ampere (Ax000) part based on the GA107 chip, released in 2024. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is from the Arc Graphics-M generation based on the Wildcat Lake chip, dated for 2026.

The Verdict

The data indicates the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior performer in every measurable category. Its FP32 throughput of 2.706 TFLOPS versus 1,280.0 GFLOPS, its 768 shading units versus 256, its 96.00 GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth versus system-shared memory, and its 24 tensor cores versus none all point to a GPU designed for professional workstation workloads. The RTX A400's benchmark presence, with a PassMark G3D score of 5,983 and an average score of 6,078, confirms it operates in the entry-level discrete GPU tier, roughly matching the GeForce MX230.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile's advantages lie in integration and efficiency. Its 25 W TDP, IGP form factor, and system-shared memory make it suitable for compact portable devices where dedicated graphics is not feasible. Its higher boost clock of 2,500 MHz versus 1,762 MHz and its 3 nm process node suggest it can achieve competitive performance in short bursts while maintaining low power draw. The 2:1 FP16 ratio of 2.560 TFLOPS nearly matches the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS in half-precision workloads, indicating the Intel part handles compute tasks reasonably well despite its smaller hardware configuration.

For users requiring a dedicated workstation GPU with proven benchmark results, professional display outputs (4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), and AI acceleration via tensor cores, the RTX A400 is the clear choice. For systems where integrated graphics are mandatory, such as thin-and-light laptops or portable devices, the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile provides a modern Xe3-LPG architecture with active production status and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The 50th percentile ranking for the Intel part versus 35th for the RTX A400 reflects the database's estimated positioning, but the absence of measured benchmarks for the Intel GPU means its actual performance remains unverified.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Ampere |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | Samsung |

| Transistors | Unknown | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1,417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2,500 MHz | 1,762 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 768 |

| TMUs | 16 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 2 | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.00 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 40.00 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,280.0 GFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-04-15 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-M | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Not listed | Workstation Ada |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 35 |