Intel Arc Graphics 32EU vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a unique comparison between the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is designed for desktop systems, built on the Arrow Lake-S chip, and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile targets portable devices, using the Twin Lake chip from the HD Graphics-T generation. Their intended environments are distinct, and the benchmark results reflect that.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has one recorded benchmark entry in the database: a score of 733 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This is the only direct performance figure available for either part. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, meaning its average benchmark score is 0 and it has no rival comparisons. Consequently, the data shows all measurable performance wins going to the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, purely because it is the only unit with recorded performance data.

For the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, the database places it at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs, indicating that its recorded score of 733 is lower than the vast majority of other graphics processors in the database. Its nearest rivals in terms of average score are the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, both with an average score of 733 and a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M sits closely behind with an average score of 723, which is 1.4% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M is slightly ahead with an average score of 751, representing a 2.4% advantage over the Arc 32EU.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has no benchmark scores, no rivals listed, and sits at the 50th percentile by default. This does not indicate real-world performance parity; rather, it reflects the absence of data. The database analysis must therefore rely on architectural and specification differences to explain where each part would hold an advantage, as the measured performance data is incomplete for the mobile part.

FAQ

Q: What is the recorded benchmark score for the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU scores 733 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, which is its only recorded benchmark entry.

Q: Does the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of 0, and no rival comparisons recorded.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU matches the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU with identical average scores of 733. 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 are the boost clock differences between the two parts?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU boosts to 1950 MHz, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile boosts to 1000 MHz. Both have a base clock of 300 MHz.

Q: Which part has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU delivers a pixel rate of 15.60 GPixel/s, which is substantially higher than the 4.000 GPixel/s of the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has a TDP of 65 W, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. The headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty, and the win counts for both parts are zero. This means there is no measured comparison where both parts ran the same test and produced scores. The only benchmark score available for either part belongs to the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, which recorded 733 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test.

When examining the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU against its nearest rivals, the data shows a tight cluster of performance. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU both match the 733 average score exactly, resulting in a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails by 1.4% with its 723 average score, placing it 10 points behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads the group with a 751 average score, which is 18 points higher, corresponding to a 2.4% delta in favor of the NVIDIA part.

For the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, the absence of benchmark data precludes any numerical walkthrough of wins or losses. The database records no rivals, no average score, and no percentile ranking based on measured performance. The 50th percentile assigned to it is a neutral placeholder, not a performance indicator. The analysis for this part must therefore shift to its architectural and specification profile, where its strengths lie in power efficiency and portability rather than raw throughput.

The pixel rate difference is the largest measurable gap between the two in terms of rendering throughput. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU produces 15.60 GPixel/s, which is 3.9 times the 4.000 GPixel/s of the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. Texture rate shows a similar disparity: 31.20 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s, a 2.6 times advantage for the desktop part. Floating-point performance tells the same story, with the Arc 32EU delivering 998.4 GFLOPS in FP32 compared to 384.0 GFLOPS for the mobile part.

Specification Differences

The two integrated graphics processors diverge across nearly every specification field. The most striking difference is in process technology. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The desktop part integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a transistor density of 73.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The mobile part has unknown transistor count, die size, and density.

Clock speeds differ significantly. Both parts share a 300 MHz base clock, but the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU boosts to 1950 MHz, nearly double the 1000 MHz boost of the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. Memory configuration is identical on paper: both use system-shared memory with a system-shared type, bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth.

Execution resources scale with the architectural differences. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Neither part includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as those fields are null in the database.

Rendering rates reflect these resource counts. The Arc 32EU achieves 15.60 GPixel/s and 31.20 GTexel/s, while the mobile part achieves 4.000 GPixel/s and 12.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 998.4 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS, and FP16 compute is 1.997 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS, both with a 2:1 ratio.

Power draw is another major differentiator. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has a TDP of 65 W, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W, a more than tenfold difference. Both are integrated graphics processors with a slot width of IGP and use a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs differ: the desktop part is motherboard dependent, while the mobile part is portable device dependent.

API support shows a small but meaningful gap. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates also differ, with the Arc 32EU launching on 2024-10-23 and the mobile part launching on 2024-12-31. The Arc 32EU lists the HD Graphics-M as its predecessor, while the mobile part has no predecessor recorded.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures separate these two parts into distinct families. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation built for Arrow Lake-S. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the older Xe-LP architecture, part of the HD Graphics-T generation for Twin Lake. This architectural generation gap explains many of the performance differences observed in the specifications.

The Xe-LPG architecture in the Arc 32EU is built on a 3 nm TSMC process, enabling 17,800 million transistors in a 243 mm² die. The Xe-LP architecture in the mobile part uses a 10 nm Intel process, with unknown transistor counts and die size. The manufacturing node difference alone accounts for significant efficiency and density advantages for the newer part.

Execution unit counts differ in line with the architecture. The Xe-LPG design in the Arc 32EU pairs 256 shading units with 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The Xe-LP design in the mobile part halves the ROP count to 4 and reduces TMUs to 12, with 192 shading units. The higher boost clock of 1950 MHz on the Xe-LPG part further amplifies its throughput advantage over the 1000 MHz boost of the Xe-LP part.

Feature support also diverges at the API level. The Xe-LPG architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with the 12_2 feature level, which includes additional rendering features over the DirectX 12 (12_1) supported by the Xe-LP architecture. Both architectures support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those API levels are not differentiators.

Neither architecture includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, according to the database. The performance gap must therefore come from the combination of newer process node, higher clock speeds, and larger execution resource pools. The 65 W TDP of the Arc 32EU enables those higher clocks and more units, while the 6 W TDP of the mobile part is clearly optimized for battery-powered portable devices.

The database also records different display output dependencies. The Arc 32EU relies on the motherboard for its display outputs, consistent with a desktop IGP. The mobile part relies on the portable device, consistent with an integrated solution in a laptop or handheld. Memory bandwidth is system dependent for both, meaning the actual memory performance will vary based on the host platform's memory configuration.

In terms of positioning, the Arc 32EU is an active production part released on 2024-10-23, with the HD Graphics-M as its predecessor. The mobile part is also active, released on 2024-12-31, with no predecessor listed. The newer release date and lower power envelope suggest the mobile part targets a different segment entirely, prioritizing efficiency and battery life over raw graphics throughput.