Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile or the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. Consequently, there are no direct performance comparisons with exact numbers to walk through. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating they occupy a middle position in the overall performance distribution, but this percentile is based on the same zero-score baseline rather than measured workloads.

The absence of measured results does not mean the two are equivalent in capability. The specification data reveals a substantial difference in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA part delivers 4.301 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 3.021 TFLOPS higher than the Intel part's 1,280.0 GFLOPS (1.280 TFLOPS). That translates to roughly 3.36 times the single-precision compute of the Intel chip, a gap that would dominate any FP32-heavy workload such as traditional rasterization or compute shaders. In FP16, the NVIDIA part reaches 8.602 TFLOPS versus Intel's 2.560 TFLOPS, a 6.042 TFLOPS advantage, again about 3.36 times higher. These figures come directly from the recorded data and represent the only quantitative performance indicators available.

Texture and pixel throughput tell a similar story. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU sustains a texture rate of 67.20 GTexel/s, which exceeds the Intel part's 40.00 GTexel/s by 27.20 GTexel/s. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA as well: 22.40 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s, a 2.40 GPixel/s lead. These rates are derived from the shading unit counts, TMU counts, and clock speeds recorded in the database, so they reflect architectural throughput ceilings rather than application-level results.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The Intel chip has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, a boost ratio of over 8 times its base. The NVIDIA chip runs a base clock of 561 MHz and a boost clock of 1400 MHz, a far narrower ratio of about 2.5 times. The Intel part's higher boost clock partially compensates for its lower core count, but the sheer core disparity (256 shading units versus 1536) overwhelms that clock advantage in every throughput calculation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU, at 4.301 TFLOPS, delivers 3.021 TFLOPS more than the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile's 1,280.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The NVIDIA part uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X over a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in the database.

Q: Which chip has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 12 RT cores, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 2 RT cores.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: Intel uses a 3 nm process at its own foundry, while NVIDIA uses Samsung's 8 nm process. The NVIDIA chip has a die size of 200 mm², while Intel's die size is listed as unknown.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Intel part has a TDP of 25 W, and the NVIDIA part has a TDP of 40 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design lineages. Intel's Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. NVIDIA's Switch 2 GPU uses the GA10B chip based on the Ampere architecture, made for the Nintendo console segment, and is fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process with a 200 mm² die size.

Core organization diverges sharply. The Intel chip packs 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA chip contains 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is 1280 more shading units, 32 more TMUs, and 8 more ROPs for NVIDIA. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: NVIDIA has 12 RT cores versus Intel's 2 RT cores. Additionally, NVIDIA includes 48 tensor cores, a feature class entirely absent from the Intel part's specification, where tensor cores are listed as null.

Memory architecture represents another fundamental difference. Intel relies on system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's memory subsystem. NVIDIA uses a dedicated 12 GB LPDDR5X pool on a 128-bit bus with a fixed 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. This gives the NVIDIA part predictable memory performance independent of the host system, while the Intel part's memory behavior varies by platform.

Both parts support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, while the NVIDIA part runs at a base of 561 MHz and a boost of 1400 MHz. The Intel chip uses an IGP bus interface with no power connectors and a slot width of IGP, indicating it is integrated into a processor package. The NVIDIA part has no bus interface listed, no slot width, and no display outputs, consistent with a console SoC that drives a fixed display pipeline rather than a user-upgradeable card.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two parts differ, drawn directly from the database entries.

| Specification | Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile | NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | NVIDIA |

| Chip | Wildcat Lake | GA10B |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Ampere |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) | Console GPU (Nintendo) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | Samsung |

| Die size | unknown | 200 mm² |

| Base clock | 300 MHz | 561 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2500 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Memory clock | System Shared | 800 MHz 6.4 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | System Shared | 12 GB |

| Memory type | System Shared | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading units | 256 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 16 | 48 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| RT cores | 2 | 12 |

| Tensor cores | null | 48 |

| Pixel rate | 20.00 GPixel/s | 22.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 40.00 GTexel/s | 67.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,280.0 GFLOPS | 4.301 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 40 W |

| Slot width | IGP | null |

| Power connectors | None | null |

| Bus interface | IGP | null |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-06-04 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-M | null |

| Launch MSRP | null | 449 USD |

| Dimensions | null | 272 mm length, 116 mm height, 14 mm width |

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear hierarchy in raw throughput. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU outperforms the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile in every compute and fill-rate metric: FP32 by 3.021 TFLOPS, FP16 by 6.042 TFLOPS, texture rate by 27.20 GTexel/s, and pixel rate by 2.40 GPixel/s. It also carries 12 RT cores, 48 tensor cores, and a dedicated 12 GB memory pool with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part counters with a newer 3 nm process, a substantially higher boost clock (2500 MHz versus 1400 MHz), and a lower 25 W TDP versus 40 W.

For users who prioritize peak performance in graphics workloads, the NVIDIA part is the stronger choice based on the recorded specifications. Its compute advantage is roughly threefold, and its dedicated memory removes dependence on host system memory quality. For users who prioritize efficiency and integration, the Intel part draws 15 W less and fits into an IGP form factor, meaning it requires no separate card slot or power connectors. The release dates also differ: the NVIDIA part launched on 2025-06-04 with a launch MSRP of 449 USD, while the Intel part launched later on 2026-04-15 with no listed MSRP.

Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so the verdict rests entirely on specification-derived throughput. The NVIDIA part is the performance leader; the Intel part is the integration and efficiency leader.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU wins on raw compute. Its 4.301 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.602 TFLOPS FP16 figures dominate the Intel part's 1,280.0 GFLOPS and 2.560 TFLOPS. Any workload that scales with shader throughput, such as high-resolution rasterization, compute post-processing, or FP16-heavy graphics effects, will favor the NVIDIA chip. Its 67.20 GTexel/s texture rate and 22.40 GPixel/s pixel rate also exceed Intel's 40.00 GTexel/s and 20.00 GPixel/s, so texture-heavy scenes and pixel-fill-bound passes run faster on NVIDIA.

NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU wins on memory determinism. A fixed 12 GB LPDDR5X pool with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth means performance does not depend on the host system's memory configuration. The Intel part's system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth introduces variability: a fast host memory subsystem could narrow the gap, but the database records no such scenario.

NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU wins on acceleration features. Twelve RT cores versus two, and 48 tensor cores versus none, give the NVIDIA part a structural advantage in ray-traced rendering and tensor-based workloads. The Intel part has no tensor core field populated, so it lacks a comparable AI acceleration path.

Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins on power efficiency. At 25 W TDP versus 40 W, the Intel part draws 15 W less. For thermally constrained or battery-powered portable devices, that difference is material.

Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins on integration flexibility. Its IGP slot width, IGP bus interface, and lack of power connectors mean it can be placed directly into a processor package without additional board space. The NVIDIA part has no bus interface or slot width listed, and its display outputs are listed as none, indicating it is not designed for general-purpose desktop use.

Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins on clock headroom. The boost clock of 2500 MHz versus 1400 MHz gives the Intel part a higher peak operating frequency. This does not overcome the core count deficit in throughput calculations, but it suggests the Intel design can scale frequency more aggressively when thermal and power budgets allow.