Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark scores for either Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile or Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and no head-to-head benchmark results are present in the database. The wins column for each part is also zero, meaning neither unit has a recorded victory over the other in any measured workload.

Despite the absence of direct test results, the theoretical throughput figures provide a basis for comparison. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS. This translates to a 31.4% advantage for the Panther Lake part in raw floating-point throughput. The same ratio applies to texture fill rate: the 4 Xe Mobile reaches 73.60 GTexel/s against 56.00 GTexel/s for the 64EU Mobile, again a 31.4% lead. Pixel throughput follows the same pattern, with the 4 Xe Mobile producing 36.80 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s for the Meteor Lake chip.

The FP16 figures mirror the FP32 relationship. The 4 Xe Mobile records 4.710 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, and the 64EU Mobile records 3.584 TFLOPS under the same ratio. The 4 Xe Mobile leads by the same 31.4% margin. These consistent deltas across FP32, FP16, texture, and pixel rates indicate that the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific; both parts share identical shading unit, TMU, and ROP counts, so the difference comes down to clock speed and architecture generation.

The boost clock difference is substantial. The 4 Xe Mobile runs at 2300 MHz, while the 64EU Mobile tops out at 1750 MHz. That is a 550 MHz gap, or 31.4% higher boost frequency. Base clocks are the same at 300 MHz, so the entire recorded performance advantage of the 4 Xe Mobile stems from its higher boost ceiling. The 64EU Mobile cannot compensate with any recorded advantage in the database; it holds no wins in any metric.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning their aggregate standing is identical. With no benchmark scores recorded, this percentile likely reflects their equal positioning as integrated graphics rather than any measured performance data. The average benchmark score of zero for both units confirms that no synthetic or real-world tests have been logged.

Architecture Differences

The two mobile graphics processors come from different chip designs and process nodes. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Panther Lake chip, built on the Xe3-LPG architecture and manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip, built on the Xe-LPG architecture and manufactured on a 10 nm process, also at Intel. The 3 nm node represents a finer manufacturing geometry than the 10 nm node, which typically allows higher clock speeds at similar power envelopes.

The shading core counts are identical. Both parts have 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The 4 Xe Mobile adds 4 ray tracing cores, while the 64EU Mobile lists no ray tracing cores in the database. This is a functional difference: the Panther Lake part can handle ray-traced workloads through dedicated hardware, whereas the Meteor Lake part has no recorded RT core count, indicating it relies on compute shaders or lacks the feature entirely.

The API support differs as well. The 4 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the 64EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation implies support for the full feature set of the DXR ray tracing API, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading, consistent with the presence of RT cores. The 64EU Mobile, with its 12_1 feature level, lacks those Ultimate-level capabilities in the recorded data.

The bus interface also differs. The 4 Xe Mobile connects via an IGP interface, while the 64EU Mobile uses a Ring Bus interface. Both are integrated graphics with no dedicated slot width and no power connectors listed for the 4 Xe Mobile; the 64EU Mobile has no power connector data recorded. Display outputs for both are described as Portable Device Dependent, confirming their mobile integration.

Power consumption differs considerably. The 4 Xe Mobile has a 25 W TDP, while the 64EU Mobile has a 65 W TDP. This is notable because the 4 Xe Mobile delivers higher theoretical performance while drawing less power, enabled by the smaller 3 nm process node and the newer Xe3-LPG architecture. The 64EU Mobile, despite its higher power budget, cannot match the clock speeds or throughput of the newer part.

The release dates are far apart. The 64EU Mobile launched on 2023-12-13, while the 4 Xe Mobile launched on 2026-01-26. The Meteor Lake part lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-M, and the 4 Xe Mobile has no predecessor recorded. Neither part has a successor listed. Both are currently marked as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile as the stronger part. It leads in every recorded performance metric: FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, texture fill rate, pixel fill rate, and boost clock. The margins are consistent at 31.4% across all throughput measures, and the boost clock advantage is exactly 31.4% as well. This consistency indicates the performance gap is driven directly by the higher boost frequency, not by architectural efficiency differences or core count variations, since the core counts are identical.

The 4 Xe Mobile also has a lower TDP at 25 W versus 65 W, meaning it achieves higher performance at less than half the power budget. The ray tracing cores present in the 4 Xe Mobile and absent from the 64EU Mobile add another functional advantage. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support on the 4 Xe Mobile versus DirectX 12 (12_1) on the 64EU Mobile further separates the two in feature capability.

The 64EU Mobile has no recorded advantages. It uses an older architecture, an older process node, has no ray tracing cores, supports a lower DirectX feature level, and offers lower theoretical throughput. Its only distinguishing traits are its higher TDP and earlier release date, neither of which constitutes a performance benefit.

For buyers or system integrators choosing between these two integrated GPUs, the recorded data supports the 4 Xe Mobile on every measurable axis. The 64EU Mobile remains a capable integrated solution, but the database shows no scenario where it outperforms its successor. The 3 nm process and Xe3-LPG architecture of the Panther Lake part deliver superior results across the board.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS. The 4 Xe Mobile leads by 31.4%.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 512 shading units. They also share identical counts of 32 texture mapping units and 16 raster output units.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile support ray tracing?

A: The database records no ray tracing cores for the 64EU Mobile. The 4 Xe Mobile has 4 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The 4 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz, while the 64EU Mobile boosts to 1750 MHz. The difference is 550 MHz in favor of the 4 Xe Mobile.

Q: Which GPU has a lower TDP?

A: The 4 Xe Mobile has a 25 W TDP. The 64EU Mobile has a 65 W TDP, which is 40 W higher.

Q: What DirectX versions do the two GPUs support?

A: The 4 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The 64EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in every recorded performance category. Its FP32 throughput of 2.355 TFLOPS exceeds the 1.792 TFLOPS of the 64EU Mobile. Its FP16 throughput of 4.710 TFLOPS exceeds the 3.584 TFLOPS of the older part. Texture fill rate favors the 4 Xe Mobile at 73.60 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s, and pixel fill rate favors it at 36.80 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s. The boost clock of 2300 MHz versus 1750 MHz gives the 4 Xe Mobile a 31.4% frequency advantage, which explains the consistent throughput margins.

The 4 Xe Mobile also wins on power efficiency. Its 25 W TDP is 40 W lower than the 64EU Mobile's 65 W TDP, yet it produces higher fill rates and compute throughput. The 3 nm process node enables this combination of higher clocks and lower power draw. The ray tracing hardware, 4 cores present on the 4 Xe Mobile and absent on the 64EU Mobile, gives the newer part a feature advantage for any workload using DXR or similar ray tracing APIs. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support on the 4 Xe Mobile versus 12_1 on the 64EU Mobile means the newer part supports the full range of modern graphics features.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile does not win any recorded category. Its earlier release date of 2023-12-13 compared to 2026-01-26 is a chronological distinction, not a performance one. Its 65 W TDP is higher, which could be considered a drawback in thermally constrained mobile designs. The Ring Bus interface differs from the IGP interface of the 4 Xe Mobile, but the database records no performance consequence from this difference.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several recorded specifications. The chip design differs: Panther Lake for the 4 Xe Mobile, Meteor Lake for the 64EU Mobile. The architecture differs: Xe3-LPG for the newer part, Xe-LPG for the older part. The process node differs: 3 nm for the 4 Xe Mobile, 10 nm for the 64EU Mobile. The generation differs: Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) versus Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake).

Clock speeds differ significantly. The base clock is the same at 300 MHz for both, but the boost clock is 2300 MHz for the 4 Xe Mobile and 1750 MHz for the 64EU Mobile. Ray tracing cores differ: 4 for the 4 Xe Mobile, none recorded for the 64EU Mobile. The pixel rate is 36.80 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 73.60 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 2.355 TFLOPS versus 1.792 TFLOPS. FP16 is 4.710 TFLOPS versus 3.584 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

TDP differs: 25 W for the 4 Xe Mobile, 65 W for the 64EU Mobile. The bus interface differs: IGP for the 4 Xe Mobile, Ring Bus for the 64EU Mobile. DirectX support differs: 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the 4 Xe Mobile, 12 (12_1) for the 64EU Mobile. Release dates differ: 2026-01-26 for the 4 Xe Mobile, 2023-12-13 for the 64EU Mobile. The predecessor field is empty for the 4 Xe Mobile and lists HD Graphics-M for the 64EU Mobile. Both use System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, both have identical shading unit, TMU, and ROP counts, both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, and both are marked Active in production status.