Intel Arc Graphics 24EU vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only one benchmark result for the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has no benchmark entries in the database, and no head-to-head benchmark comparisons exist between these two products. This makes a direct performance comparison impossible from the available measurements.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU's single score places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals show a tight cluster: the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU both share the identical average score of 733, representing a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails at 723, which is 1.4% behind the 24EU. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads this small group with 751, putting the 24EU 2.4% behind that part.

The H20 NVL16, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, yet its average benchmark score is recorded as 0 because no tests have been run on it. The database shows no rivals for the H20 NVL16, which further limits any comparative analysis. The data indicates that the H20 NVL16 has not been measured in any standardized benchmark, while the Arc Graphics 24EU has at least one data point.

What the numbers suggest is that the Arc Graphics 24EU is positioned at the very low end of the performance spectrum, surrounded by other entry-level mobile and integrated graphics parts. The 3rd percentile ranking signals that 97% of all GPUs in the database score higher. The H20 NVL16's 50th percentile, even without a concrete score, indicates it occupies a mid-pack position relative to the entire GPU population, though the absence of benchmark data leaves its actual performance unquantified.

The delta percentages among the Arc Graphics 24EU's nearest rivals are minimal, ranging from -2.4% to +1.4%. This suggests that the 24EU performs within a narrow band of similarly positioned graphics processors. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M, a much older part, still manages to outscore the Arc Graphics 24EU by 2.4%, which places the Intel part's performance in perspective.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU compare to its closest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Arc Graphics 24EU scores 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU both score exactly 733, showing a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which is 2.4% higher.

Q: What benchmark data exists for the NVIDIA H20 NVL16?

A: The database contains no benchmark entries for the H20 NVL16. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and it has no nearest rivals recorded. The GPU holds a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, but no test results substantiate that position.

Q: What is the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU's percentile ranking?

A: The Arc Graphics 24EU ranks at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. This means 97% of all recorded graphics processors achieve higher benchmark scores than this part.

Q: What memory specifications does each product use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the API support differences between the two products?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all as N/A, indicating no consumer graphics API support.

Q: How do the shading resources compare between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 6 raster output units. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 9984 shading units, 312 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The H20 NVL16 also includes 312 tensor cores, while the Arc Graphics 24EU has none listed.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU wins in the only recorded benchmark category, since it has a measurable 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733 while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has no benchmark results at all. The Arc Graphics 24EU also wins on API compatibility for graphics workloads, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the H20 NVL16 reports no graphics API support.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 wins decisively on raw compute resources. Its 9984 shading units dwarf the Arc Graphics 24EU's 192 units, a 52:1 ratio in the database's recorded figures. The H20 NVL16's texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s compares to 24.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part, and its pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s further demonstrates the gap. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern: the H20 NVL16 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS in FP32 against 768.0 GFLOPS for the Arc Graphics 24EU.

Memory capacity and bandwidth represent another clear win for the H20 NVL16. With 96 GB of HBM3 memory and 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth, it far exceeds the Arc Graphics 24EU's system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The H20 NVL16's tensor cores, 312 of them, provide capabilities the Intel part simply does not list.

For use-case separation, the Arc Graphics 24EU fits scenarios requiring graphics output and standard API support. Its integrated nature, listed as IGP slot width with motherboard-dependent display outputs, suits systems needing basic display functionality. The H20 NVL16, with no display outputs and an SXM Module form factor, targets server deployments where graphics rendering is not the objective.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses the Arrow Lake-S chip with Xe-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. Transistor density also differs: 73.3M per mm² for the Intel part versus 98.3M per mm² for the NVIDIA part.

Clock speeds show a notable inversion. The Arc Graphics 24EU has a 300 MHz base clock and a 2000 MHz boost clock. The H20 NVL16 has a 1830 MHz base clock and a 1980 MHz boost clock. The Intel part boosts higher but starts much lower, while the NVIDIA part maintains a narrower and higher clock range.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The Arc Graphics 24EU uses system shared memory with a system shared type, bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. The H20 NVL16 uses 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, with a memory clock of 1313 MHz or 5.3 Gbps effective.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The Arc Graphics 24EU has a 65 W TDP, IGP slot width, and Ring Bus interface. The H20 NVL16 has a 400 W TDP, SXM Module slot width, PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, and an 800 W suggested PSU. The Intel part lists no power connectors, while the NVIDIA part also lists none, but the suggested PSU figure indicates much higher system power requirements.

Release dates differ by nearly a year. The Arc Graphics 24EU launched on October 23, 2024, while the H20 NVL16 launched on September 1, 2025. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics, and the NVIDIA part's predecessor is Server Ada with a successor of Server Blackwell.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two GPUs reflects fundamentally different design goals. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses Xe-LPG architecture from the Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake) generation. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses Hopper architecture from the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. These are separate architectural lineages with no shared design elements.

Process technology differs by two nodes in the recorded data. The Intel part uses 3 nm TSMC, while the NVIDIA part uses 5 nm TSMC. Despite the older node, the H20 NVL16 achieves higher transistor density at 98.3M per mm² compared to 73.3M per mm² for the Intel part. The die size difference is substantial: 243 mm² for Intel versus 814 mm² for NVIDIA, with the latter packing 80,000 million transistors versus 17,800 million.

Compute architecture shows the clearest divergence. The Arc Graphics 24EU has 192 shading units with no tensor cores listed. The H20 NVL16 has 9984 shading units, 312 tensor cores, 312 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The Intel part's 6 ROPs and 12 TMUs are minimal by comparison. Tensor core presence in the H20 NVL16 indicates AI and machine learning acceleration capabilities that the Arc Graphics 24EU entirely lacks.

Memory architecture reflects the server versus integrated positioning. The H20 NVL16 uses HBM3 in a 96 GB configuration with a 6144-bit bus, a memory type designed for high-bandwidth compute workloads. The Arc Graphics 24EU relies on system shared memory, meaning it borrows from the host system's main memory rather than having dedicated VRAM. The bandwidth figures reinforce this: 4.03 TB/s for the NVIDIA part versus system dependent for the Intel part.

API support marks another architectural distinction. The Arc Graphics 24EU carries full graphics API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 NVL16 lists all three APIs as N/A, confirming it is not designed for traditional graphics rendering. Its architecture prioritizes compute and tensor operations over pixel and texture processing.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between two products serving entirely different purposes. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU is a low-power integrated graphics solution with a 65 W TDP, designed for systems needing basic display output and standard API support. Its 733 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 3rd percentile ranking place it firmly at the entry level, comparable to the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU which share identical scores.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16, with its 400 W TDP, 96 GB HBM3 memory, and 9984 shading units, is a server-class compute accelerator. Its 50th percentile ranking, while unsubstantiated by benchmark scores, suggests mid-pack positioning among all GPUs, but its specifications indicate capabilities far beyond consumer graphics. The 39.54 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 312 tensor cores point to high-performance computing and AI workloads.

For users seeking a graphics solution with display outputs, standard API compatibility, and minimal power draw, the Arc Graphics 24EU is the only viable choice between the two. Its integrated nature and motherboard-dependent outputs make it suitable for systems where dedicated graphics are unnecessary. The H20 NVL16 cannot serve this role, as it has no display outputs and no graphics API support.

For compute-intensive server deployments, the H20 NVL16 dominates on every measurable specification. Its memory bandwidth of 4.03 TB/s, shading unit count of 9984, and FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS provide the resources for large-scale parallel processing. The absence of benchmark data means its real-world performance remains unverified, but the specification sheet alone separates it from the Arc Graphics 24EU by orders of magnitude.

The data does not support a direct performance comparison because no head-to-head benchmarks exist. What the database shows is two products with no overlapping use cases. The Arc Graphics 24EU serves the graphics rendering segment, while the H20 NVL16 serves the server compute segment. Each wins in its respective domain based on the available recorded information.