Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents two Intel integrated graphics solutions with distinctly different positioning. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is the newer, higher-performance part built on the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile is an older, lighter-duty solution based on Raptor Lake with Generation 12.2 architecture. For users needing the strongest integrated graphics available from Intel in this comparison, the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is the clear choice. The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile serves as a basic display and light-compute option, with significantly lower compute resources and a much lower boost clock. The Arc part carries a 25 W TDP versus 15 W for the UHD part, which indicates the performance gap comes with a power cost. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), which affects feature-level compatibility for modern games and applications. Neither part has a launch MSRP listed in the database, so pricing comparisons are not available.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different silicon generations and process nodes. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Panther Lake chip built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses the Raptor Lake chip built on a 10 nm process node. This process difference contributes to the Arc part's higher boost clock of 2300 MHz versus 1200 MHz for the UHD part. Both parts share a base clock of 300 MHz.

The shading resources differ substantially. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 raster operation units. This gives the Arc part four times the shading units and four times the TMUs and ROPs. The Arc part also includes 4 ray tracing cores, while the UHD part has none.

Both use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The compute throughput figures reflect the resource gap. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 4.710 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio). The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile delivers 307.2 GFLOPS of FP32 and 614.4 GFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio). In raw pixel and texture throughput, the Arc part achieves 36.80 GPixel/s and 73.60 GTexel/s, while the UHD part achieves 4.800 GPixel/s and 9.600 GTexel/s.

The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation and uses the Xe3-LPG architecture. The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile belongs to the HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake) generation and uses Generation 12.2 architecture. The UHD part has a listed successor in the database: Arc Graphics-M. The Arc part has no predecessor or successor listed.

API support differs on the DirectX front. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface also differs: the Arc part uses IGP, while the UHD part uses Ring Bus. Both are integrated graphics with no slot width and no power connectors. Display outputs for both are listed as portable device dependent. The production status for both is Active. The Arc part was released on 2026-01-26, while the UHD part was released on 2023-01-03.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins on every measurable compute metric in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 2.355 TFLOPS is roughly 7.7 times the FP32 throughput of the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile. The FP16 throughput gap is similar: 4.710 TFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS. The pixel rate of 36.80 GPixel/s is about 7.7 times the UHD part's 4.800 GPixel/s. The texture rate of 73.60 GTexel/s is also about 7.7 times the UHD part's 9.600 GTexel/s.

The Arc part's boost clock of 2300 MHz versus 1200 MHz gives it a nearly 92% higher maximum clock speed. With four times the shading units, four times the TMUs, and four times the ROPs, plus ray tracing cores, the Arc part is clearly positioned for more demanding workloads. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support enables hardware ray tracing and other modern graphics features that the DirectX 12 (12_1) UHD part cannot offer.

The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile wins on power draw, with a 15 W TDP versus 25 W for the Arc part. This makes it suitable for lighter portable devices where battery life and thermals take priority over graphics performance. The UHD part also has an earlier release date, meaning it has been available in the market for a longer period. Both parts share the same base clock of 300 MHz and the same system shared memory configuration, so neither has an advantage there.

The database shows no head-to-head benchmark entries, no wins recorded for either part, and no nearest rivals listed. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 0. This means the quantitative comparison must rely on the architectural and throughput figures recorded in the database.

For users of the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile, the primary use case is basic display output, video playback, and light office workloads. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, with its ray tracing cores and higher throughput, targets more demanding integrated graphics scenarios such as casual gaming and light creative work. The power difference of 10 W between the two parts reflects the performance tier separation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile delivers 307.2 GFLOPS. The Arc part has roughly 7.7 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile support ray tracing?

A: No. The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile includes 4 ray tracing cores.

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

A: The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz, while the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile boosts to 1200 MHz. Both have a base clock of 300 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has higher power consumption?

A: The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W, compared to 15 W for the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile.

Q: What DirectX versions do the two GPUs support?

A: The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Are these discrete or integrated graphics solutions?

A: Both are integrated graphics (IGP). The Arc part uses an IGP bus interface, and the UHD part uses a Ring Bus interface. Neither has a slot width or power connectors, and both use system shared memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs. However, the architectural specifications provide a clear quantitative picture of the performance relationship.

The largest single-resource advantage for the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is in shading units. The Arc part has 512 shading units versus 128 for the UHD part, a fourfold difference. This directly scales into the FP32 and FP16 throughput figures. The Arc part's 2.355 TFLOPS FP32 figure is 7.67 times the UHD part's 307.2 GFLOPS. The FP16 figures follow the same ratio: 4.710 TFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS, also a 7.67 times difference. Both parts use a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio.

The texture mapping units show the same fourfold gap: 32 TMUs for the Arc part versus 8 for the UHD part. This produces a texture rate of 73.60 GTexel/s for the Arc part versus 9.600 GTexel/s for the UHD part. The pixel rate comparison mirrors this: 36.80 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s. Both of these ratios are approximately 7.67 times, consistent with the shading unit scaling.

The clock speed advantage compounds the resource advantage. The Arc part's boost clock of 2300 MHz is 1.92 times the UHD part's 1200 MHz. When combined with the fourfold resource increase, the overall throughput advantage exceeds what either factor alone would predict, landing at the 7.67 times figure observed in the throughput rates.

The ray tracing cores represent a categorical advantage for the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. The Arc part includes 4 RT cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads. The UHD Graphics 710 Mobile has no RT cores listed, so any ray tracing would be handled through non-hardware paths, if at all. The DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support on the Arc part aligns with these ray tracing capabilities.

The process node difference also favors the Arc part. The 3 nm process node for Panther Lake versus the 10 nm process node for Raptor Lake means the Arc part achieves higher clock speeds and presumably better efficiency per transistor, though transistor counts are not listed in the database. The die size is also unknown for both parts.

The memory configuration offers no differentiation: both use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The bus width is system shared for both. This means memory bandwidth is determined by the host system rather than the GPU itself.

The release timeline shows the Arc part as a newer product. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile was released on 2026-01-26, while the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile was released on 2023-01-03. The database lists the UHD part's successor as Arc Graphics-M, which corresponds to the generation of the Arc part.

Both GPUs occupy the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of 0. No nearest rivals are recorded for either part, and no wins are tallied for either side. This means the performance positioning relies entirely on the recorded specifications.

The power envelope difference is the one area where the UHD part has an advantage. The 15 W TDP versus 25 W TDP means the UHD Graphics 710 Mobile can fit into lower-power designs. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile's higher power draw accompanies its higher throughput and additional features.

The pixel and texture rates confirm the Arc part's suitability for higher-resolution display output and more complex scenes. The 36.80 GPixel/s fill rate allows for more pixels per second than the 4.800 GPixel/s of the UHD part. Similarly, the 73.60 GTexel/s texture rate supports more detailed texturing than 9.600 GTexel/s.

Both parts list display outputs as portable device dependent, meaning the actual display capabilities depend on the host laptop or mobile device. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.