Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile contains no benchmark scores, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a comprehensive set of measurements. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers an average benchmark score of 31,087 across all recorded tests. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the NVIDIA card scores 5,569. Its Geekbench OpenCL score reaches 199,267, while the Vulkan score sits at 53,683. Passmark results show a G3D score of 31,811, with GPU compute at 18,372. DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 tests yield 360 and 278 respectively, while DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 scores are 181 and 119. The G2D score measures 1,225.

Since the Intel part has no recorded benchmark data, direct head-to-head comparisons are impossible. The database places the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA card sits at the 76th percentile. That percentile gap indicates the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER ranks substantially higher in overall performance distribution. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits within 1.9% of the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (average score 31,676), and within 0.4% of both the Quadro M5000 (31,206) and GRID M60-1Q (31,220). Its nearest rival, the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, trails by 1.4% with a score of 31,532.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from entirely different design philosophies. Intel uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel Foundry, with the Panther Lake chip and Xe3-LPG architecture. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses a 5 nm process node from TSMC, built on the AD103 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture. The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation, while NVIDIA's card is part of the GeForce 40 series.

Transistor counts differ dramatically. NVIDIA's AD103 packs 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are unknown in the database. Clock behavior also diverges. The Intel GPU runs at a base clock of 300 MHz with a boost of 2,300 MHz. The NVIDIA card operates at 2,340 MHz base and 2,610 MHz boost. Memory architecture separates them further: Intel uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA has 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus delivering 672.3 GB/s.

Compute resources show a wide gulf. Intel provides 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 4 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA counters with 8,448 shading units, 264 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 66 RT cores. NVIDIA also includes 264 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists none. Pixel rates measure 36.80 GPixel/s for Intel versus 250.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rates are 73.60 GTexel/s versus 689.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput reaches 2.355 TFLOPS on Intel, while NVIDIA delivers 44.10 TFLOPS. FP16 performance shows 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) on Intel versus 44.10 TFLOPS (1:1) on NVIDIA.

API support matches across both products. Each supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Power consumption stands at 25 W for Intel versus 285 W for NVIDIA. The Intel part is integrated into the package with no power connectors, while NVIDIA uses a triple-slot design with a single 16-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The bus interface differs as well: Intel uses IGP, NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion for raw performance. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER outperforms the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile by an enormous margin in every measurable compute category. The FP32 throughput difference alone is roughly 18.7 times in NVIDIA's favor (44.10 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS). Texture rate shows a 9.4 times advantage, and pixel rate a 6.8 times advantage. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 16.5 times the shading units, 8.25 times the TMUs, and 6 times the ROPs compared to the Intel integrated solution.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's 76th percentile ranking versus Intel's 50th percentile reinforces this gap. Its average benchmark score of 31,087 places it among the top quarter of all recorded GPUs, while the Intel part has no recorded score to compare. The nearest rival data for NVIDIA shows it trading results within 1.9% of the TITAN RTX, a former flagship, which contextualizes its performance class.

However, the comparison is not purely about speed. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile consumes only 25 W, making it suitable for portable devices with no discrete power connectors. The NVIDIA card draws 285 W and requires a 600 W power supply, a triple-slot cooler, and a 310 mm length. These are fundamentally different product categories: an integrated graphics solution for mobile systems versus a high-end discrete desktop card. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is marked end-of-life with a successor in the GeForce 50 series, while the Intel part is active and newer, released on 2026-01-26 versus 2024-01-23 for NVIDIA.

Users seeking maximum graphics throughput for demanding workloads should select the NVIDIA card based on the recorded scores and compute specifications. Users constrained to integrated graphics in a portable device have no choice but the Intel part, which offers a modest baseline of 512 shaders and 4 RT cores within a 25 W envelope.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER |

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

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Unknown | 45,900 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 379 mm² |

| Transistor Density | N/A | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 2,340 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2,300 MHz | 2,610 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 672.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 8,448 |

| TMUs | 32 | 264 |

| ROPs | 16 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 4 | 66 |

| Tensor Cores | N/A | 264 |

| Pixel Rate | 36.80 GPixel/s | 250.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 73.60 GTexel/s | 689.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.355 TFLOPS | 44.10 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) | 44.10 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 285 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Triple-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.13x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | N/A | 310 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2026-01-26 | 2024-01-23 |

| Successor | N/A | GeForce 50 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 799 USD |

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile compare to the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER in raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 2.355 TFLOPS for the Intel part, a margin of roughly 18.7 times. The NVIDIA card also has 16.5 times the shading units and 6.8 times the pixel rate.

Q: Which product has a higher performance percentile ranking?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits at the 76th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile sits at the 50th percentile. NVIDIA's average benchmark score is 31,087; Intel has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each product?

A: The NVIDIA card uses 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus with 672.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory specification.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W and uses no power connectors. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a TDP of 285 W, requires a single 16-pin connector, and a suggested 600 W power supply.

Q: Are there any API compatibility differences?

A: No. Both products support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which product is newer and what is the release timing?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile was released on 2026-01-26 and is marked active production. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER was released on 2024-01-23 and is marked end-of-life, with the GeForce 50 series listed as its successor.