Intel Arc Graphics 24EU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 Comparison

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 occupy vastly different positions in the database. The former is an integrated graphics solution embedded in Arrow Lake-S processors, while the latter is a discrete, end-of-life add-in board from the GeForce 40-series. The recorded data shows a single benchmark score for the Intel part, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where it records 733 points. The NVIDIA part has no benchmark scores listed, and its average score is zero. This asymmetry limits direct numerical comparison, but the specification and architectural data provide a clear picture of their respective roles and capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU wins in scenarios where an integrated GPU is sufficient. Its entire design centers on space and power efficiency. The chip uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, which is a more advanced node than the 5 nm process used by the NVIDIA part. The Intel GPU has a TDP of 65 W, which fits within the power envelope of a desktop processor. It uses the Ring Bus interface, which ties it directly to the CPU die. The memory subsystem is System Shared, meaning it draws from the main system RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. This makes it suitable for basic display output, light productivity, and legacy or low-demand titles. The data shows its percentile rank is 3, meaning it sits below 97 percent of all GPUs in the database. That is not a competitive gaming part, but it is a functional one for everyday tasks.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 wins in every performance-heavy category. It has a dedicated 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192 bit bus, delivering 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part has no dedicated memory, and its bandwidth is listed as System Dependent, which is a qualitative handicap. The NVIDIA GPU has 5888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations units. The Intel GPU has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also includes 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists no such hardware. The pixel rate for NVIDIA is 158.4 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s for Intel. The texture rate is 455.4 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 29.15 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS. Every measurable throughput metric favors the NVIDIA part by a wide margin.

The NVIDIA part also wins in connectivity and output options. It uses PCIe 4.0 x16, a dedicated slot interface, and provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Intel GPU’s display outputs are Motherboard Dependent, which means they vary by the motherboard design and are not guaranteed beyond basic integrated outputs. The NVIDIA part is a dual-slot card with dimensions of 240 mm length, 110 mm height, and 40 mm width, requiring a 550 W suggested PSU and a 16-pin power connector. The Intel GPU has no power connectors and no suggested PSU, as it draws power through the motherboard.

The Verdict

The data indicates two separate use cases. For a system that requires no discrete graphics, the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU is the only choice among these two. It is active in production, has a release date of 2024-10-23, and replaces HD Graphics in the integrated segment. Its 3 nm process and low TDP make it a reasonable integrated solution. It will drive a desktop display and handle basic 2D and light 3D workloads. The benchmark score of 733 places it in the same performance class as the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU, both of which also score 733, and it is 1.4 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6470M. It is 2.4 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M. These are all very old or very low-end parts, confirming the Intel GPU’s entry-level positioning.

For any workload involving modern gaming, video editing, 3D rendering, or CUDA-accelerated compute, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 is the appropriate part. It has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so its exact performance percentile cannot be computed from direct measurements. However, its percentile vs all GPUs is listed as 50, meaning it sits above half of all GPUs in the database. That is a far higher positioning than the Intel part’s 3rd percentile. The NVIDIA GPU has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which can be stated once. Its production status is end-of-life, with a release date of 2024-02-29. It is the successor to the GeForce 30 series and the predecessor to the GeForce 50 series. The specification sheet alone, with 5888 shading units and 29.15 TFLOPS FP32, indicates a part built for heavy parallel workloads.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the Intel GPU for an integrated, low-power system with no expansion slot. Choose the NVIDIA GPU for a discrete, high-performance workstation or gaming PC. The database does not show a scenario where the Intel part can match the NVIDIA part on any compute metric.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and the wins count is zero for both parts. There are no direct comparative tests recorded. The only benchmark available for either part is the Intel GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. The NVIDIA GPU has no scores listed. This means any head-to-head comparison must rely on the specification tables rather than measured results.

The largest single numerical gap is in FP32 compute. The NVIDIA part delivers 29.15 TFLOPS, while the Intel part delivers 768.0 GFLOPS. This is a ratio of approximately 38 to 1. The FP16 figures show a similar disparity: NVIDIA lists 29.15 TFLOPS (1:1), while Intel lists 1.536 TFLOPS (2:1). The NVIDIA part runs FP16 at the same rate as FP32, while the Intel part halves its throughput for FP16.

Texture rate is another massive gap. The NVIDIA GPU has 455.4 GTexel/s, the Intel GPU has 24.00 GTexel/s. That is a 19-fold difference. Pixel rate shows 158.4 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s, a 13-fold difference. Memory bandwidth is 504.2 GB/s for NVIDIA versus System Dependent for Intel, which cannot be quantified from the pack. The NVIDIA part’s 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192 bit bus is a dedicated resource, while the Intel part shares system memory.

Shading units differ by a factor of 30.7 (5888 versus 192). Texture mapping units differ by a factor of 15.3 (184 versus 12). ROPs differ by a factor of 10.7 (64 versus 6). The NVIDIA part has 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists null for both. This indicates the Intel integrated GPU does not have dedicated hardware for ray tracing or tensor operations.

Clocks also differ. The NVIDIA base clock is 1920 MHz with a boost of 2475 MHz. The Intel base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 2000 MHz. The memory clock for NVIDIA is 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective), while Intel’s memory clock is System Shared. The NVIDIA part’s higher base clock and much larger shading unit count drive its performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score in the database?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has a recorded score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has no benchmark scores listed, so its average score is 0.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU sits at the 3rd percentile versus all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 sits at the 50th percentile.

Q: Does the Intel GPU have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses System Shared memory, with the type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as System Shared or System Dependent. The NVIDIA GPU has 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192 bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are there any ray tracing or tensor cores in either GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU lists null for both ray tracing cores and tensor cores. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 lists 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has a TDP of 65 W. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has a TDP of 200 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: What are the production statuses?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU is Active. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 is End-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use different architectures from different vendors. The Intel part uses Xe-LPG, which is the graphics architecture for Arc Graphics on Arrow Lake-S. The NVIDIA part uses Ada Lovelace, which is the architecture for the GeForce 40-series. The Intel chip is Arrow Lake-S, while the NVIDIA chip is AD103.

The process nodes differ. Intel uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The Intel die is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 73.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die is 379 mm² with 45,900 million transistors, giving a density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die is larger in area and has more than 2.5 times the transistor count.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. Intel uses System Shared memory, which means it borrows from main system RAM. NVIDIA uses dedicated GDDR6X memory. The NVIDIA memory clock is 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel memory clock is System Shared. The memory bus width is 192 bit for NVIDIA, while Intel’s is System Shared.

The execution resources are asymmetric. NVIDIA has 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Intel has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. NVIDIA includes 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores. Intel lists no RT or tensor hardware. The API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The bus interface differs. Intel uses Ring Bus, which is an internal interconnect for integrated graphics. NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16, a dedicated expansion slot interface. The slot width for Intel is IGP, meaning it is part of the processor package. NVIDIA is Dual-slot, meaning it occupies two expansion slots.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two parts differ.

The manufacturer is Intel versus NVIDIA. The series is null for Intel and GeForce 40-series for NVIDIA. The chip is Arrow Lake-S versus AD103. The architecture is Xe-LPG versus Ada Lovelace. The generation is Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake) versus GeForce 40. The process node is 3 nm versus 5 nm. The transistor count is 17,800 million versus 45,900 million. The die size is 243 mm² versus 379 mm². The transistor density is 73.3M per mm² versus 121.1M per mm².

The base clock is 300 MHz versus 1920 MHz. The boost clock is 2000 MHz versus 2475 MHz. The memory clock is System Shared versus 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). The memory size is System Shared versus 12 GB. The memory type is System Shared versus GDDR6X. The memory bus width is System Shared versus 192 bit. The memory bandwidth is System Dependent versus 504.2 GB/s.

The shading units are 192 versus 5888. The TMUs are 12 versus 184. The ROPs are 6 versus 64. The RT cores are null versus 46. The tensor cores are null versus 184. The pixel rate is 12.00 GPixel/s versus 158.4 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s versus 455.4 GTexel/s. The FP32 is 768.0 GFLOPS versus 29.15 TFLOPS. The FP16 is 1.536 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 29.15 TFLOPS (1:1).

The TDP is 65 W versus 200 W. The slot width is IGP versus Dual-slot. The power connectors are null versus 1x 16-pin. The suggested PSU is null versus 550 W. The bus interface is Ring Bus versus PCIe 4.0 x16. The display outputs are Motherboard Dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The dimensions are null for Intel, while NVIDIA is 240 mm length, 110 mm height, and 40 mm width. The production status is Active versus End-of-life. The release date is 2024-10-23 versus 2024-02-29. The predecessor is HD Graphics versus GeForce 30. The successor is null versus GeForce 50. The launch MSRP is null versus 599 USD. The benchmark score is 733 versus none. The percentile is 3 versus 50. The average score is 733 versus 0. The nearest rivals for Intel include Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU (both 733, 0 percent delta), AMD Radeon HD 6470M (723, 1.4 percent), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (751, -2.4 percent). The NVIDIA part has no nearest rivals listed.