Intel Arc Graphics 24EU vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and NVIDIA H20 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, yet both are active products in the database. The Arc part is an integrated graphics solution embedded in Intel's Arrow Lake-S processors, while the H20 is a massive server accelerator built on the Hopper architecture. Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are absent, so the analysis relies on their respective recorded specifications, individual benchmark scores, and percentile placements. The data shows two devices designed for entirely different workloads, with almost no overlap in capability or intended use.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU wins in any scenario requiring a built-in display output and low power consumption. It is an IGP with a 65 W TDP, uses system shared memory, and its display outputs are motherboard dependent. This makes it suitable for basic desktop tasks, office productivity, and lightweight media playback where a discrete GPU is unnecessary. Its benchmark presence, a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, places it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is among the slowest parts in the database. It wins on accessibility and simplicity, not on raw performance.

The NVIDIA H20 wins decisively on compute throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth. It has 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 79.07 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, which dwarfs the Arc's 768.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 1.536 TFLOPS FP16. The H20 carries 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, yielding 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. This is a server-class accelerator designed for large-scale data center workloads, high-performance computing, and AI inference or training. It has no display outputs, confirming it is not meant for graphics output. The H20 sits in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, which is a moderate ranking, but its benchmark score is listed as zero, meaning the database has no recorded performance measurement for it. The Arc has a recorded score, the H20 does not.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is substantial. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC. The chip, Arrow Lake-S, contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 73.3M per mm². This is a highly integrated, power-efficient design. The H20 uses the Hopper architecture on a 5 nm process, also from TSMC. Its GH100 chip packs 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, with a density of 98.3M per mm². The H20's die is over three times larger in area and holds over four times the transistor count.

Compute resources differ wildly. The Arc has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 6 raster output pipelines. The H20 has 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The H20 also includes 312 tensor cores, while the Arc lists none. Neither part lists dedicated RT cores. The pixel rate for the Arc is 12.00 GPixel/s, while the H20 achieves 47.52 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 24.00 GTexel/s for the Arc and 617.8 GTexel/s for the H20. Clock behavior also differs: the Arc has a 300 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, while the H20 runs a 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. The H20's higher base clock and massive core count explain its compute advantage.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Arc uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, meaning it borrows from the host CPU's RAM. The H20 has dedicated 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The memory clock for the H20 is listed as 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective. The Arc has no dedicated memory clock, relying on system memory. The bus interface also differs: the Arc uses a Ring Bus, while the H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two parts. The wins counter shows zero for each. This absence is informative: the two are not competitors and have never been tested against each other in the same workload. However, their individual recorded data allows for a specification-level comparison.

The Arc's only benchmark is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, both with an identical average score of 733, a delta of 0%. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4% below the Arc. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which is 2.4% above the Arc. These rivals are all low-end or legacy parts, confirming the Arc's position near the bottom of the performance hierarchy.

The H20 has no recorded benchmarks and no nearest rivals. Its average benchmark score is listed as zero. This means the database has no performance measurement for it, so any comparison must rely on architectural specifications. The H20's FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS is roughly 51 times higher than the Arc's 768.0 GFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS is about 51 times higher than the Arc's 1.536 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth is 4.03 TB/s versus a system dependent figure for the Arc, which in practice will be orders of magnitude lower. The H20's 96 GB memory capacity is unmatched by the Arc's shared memory approach.

The H20's pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s is nearly four times the Arc's 12.00 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s is over 25 times the Arc's 24.00 GTexel/s. These are not competing products; the data indicates the H20 is built for throughput and memory capacity, while the Arc is built for basic graphics output on a low-power integrated platform.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU have any performance advantage over the NVIDIA H20?

A: No. The Arc's FP32 performance is 768.0 GFLOPS versus the H20's 39.54 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is 1.536 TFLOPS versus 79.07 TFLOPS. The H20 also has higher pixel and texture rates.

Q: Why does the NVIDIA H20 have no benchmark score in the database?

A: The recorded data shows an average benchmark score of zero for the H20, with no benchmark entries and no nearest rivals. The Arc, by contrast, has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733.

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The Arc uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can the NVIDIA H20 be used for display output?

A: No. The H20 lists no display outputs. The Arc's display outputs are motherboard dependent, meaning it can drive displays if the motherboard provides the connections.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Arc has a 65 W TDP and is an IGP. The H20 has a 500 W TDP and is an SXM Module, with a suggested PSU of 900 W.

Q: Which part has tensor cores?

A: The H20 has 312 tensor cores. The Arc lists no tensor cores.

The Verdict

The data indicates these GPUs target entirely different markets. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU is an integrated part for mainstream processors, with a 65 W TDP, system shared memory, and motherboard dependent display outputs. Its 3DMark score of 733 places it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs, surrounded by legacy mobile parts like the AMD Radeon HD 6470M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M. It is for basic computing where a separate graphics card is not justified.

The NVIDIA H20 is a server accelerator with 500 W TDP, 96 GB HBM3, 312 tensor cores, and no display outputs. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput are roughly 51 times higher than the Arc's. The H20's 4.03 TB/s memory bandwidth and 6144-bit bus make it suited for data center workloads. The absence of benchmark data and its 50th percentile placement suggest it is a mid-tier part in the broader database, but its specifications are far beyond the Arc's capabilities. The Arc is for light integrated graphics; the H20 is for heavy compute. There is no scenario in the recorded data where one serves as a substitute for the other.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Graphics 24EU | NVIDIA H20 |

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

| Architecture | Xe-LPG | Hopper |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | 80,000 million |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | 814 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 73.3M / mm² | 98.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1830 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 1980 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 96 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | HBM3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 6144 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 4.03 TB/s |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1313 MHz, 5.3 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 192 | 9984 |

| TMUs | 12 | 312 |

| ROPs | 6 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 312 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.00 GPixel/s | 47.52 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 617.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.0 GFLOPS | 39.54 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1.536 TFLOPS (2:1) | 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 65 W | 500 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | SXM Module |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | No outputs |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 900 W |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2024-10-23 | 2024-01-31 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics | Server Ada |

| Successor | None listed | Server Blackwell |