Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER Comparison

The Verdict

The data places these two GPUs at opposite extremes of the mobile and desktop graphics spectrum. Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built for Panther Lake laptops, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER is a dual-slot, PCIe 5.0 x16 discrete desktop card. The benchmark record shows the RTX 5070 SUPER scoring 2690 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, which places it at the 18th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Intel part has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile by default. The RTX 5070 SUPER’s nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M (2664, 1 percent lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 (2662, 1.1 percent lower), the Intel Arc Pro B50 (2660, 1.1 percent lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 (2645, 1.7 percent lower). This clustering indicates the RTX 5070 SUPER’s single recorded score is only marginally ahead of those older or lower-tier parts, despite its much larger hardware specifications. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, with no benchmark entries, cannot be ranked against the RTX 5070 SUPER directly. The verdict from the recorded data is that the RTX 5070 SUPER is the only one of the two with a measurable benchmark presence, and its performance as recorded is modest relative to its specification sheet. The Intel IGP should be selected for systems requiring integrated graphics with no discrete card, while the RTX 5070 SUPER is the choice for a desktop build needing a dedicated card that fits a dual-slot form factor.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5070 SUPER wins in every category where the database contains a benchmark result. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2690 is the sole recorded win, and it exists only for the NVIDIA part. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has no wins because the database lists no benchmarks for it. In terms of hardware capacity, the RTX 5070 SUPER holds advantages in shading units (6400 versus 512), texture mapping units (200 versus 32), render output units (80 versus 16), ray tracing cores (50 versus 4), and tensor cores (200 versus none listed for Intel). The Intel part wins in power efficiency as measured by TDP, with 25 W versus 275 W, and in its integrated nature, requiring no power connectors and occupying no expansion slot. The RTX 5070 SUPER uses a 1x 16-pin power connector and a dual-slot width. The Intel IGP’s memory is system shared, so its bandwidth is system dependent, whereas the RTX 5070 SUPER has dedicated 18 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The use-case split from the data is clear: the RTX 5070 SUPER is for dedicated rendering workloads with its 32.15 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, while the Intel IGP is for portable devices where integrated graphics and low power draw are the defining constraints.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different manufacturers, foundries, and process nodes. Intel builds the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile on a 3 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, using the Xe3-LPG architecture and the Panther Lake chip. The RTX 5070 SUPER uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with the GB205 chip. The transistor counts diverge sharply: the RTX 5070 SUPER packs 31,100 million transistors on a 263 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.3M per mm². The Intel part lists unknown transistor count and die size. Clock behavior differs as well. The Intel IGP has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 2300 MHz, while the RTX 5070 SUPER starts at 2325 MHz base and boosts to 2512 MHz. The Intel part’s FP16 throughput is 4.710 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP32 is half that at 2.355 TFLOPS. The RTX 5070 SUPER delivers 32.15 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, indicating no half-rate penalty for FP16 workloads. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the Intel IGP produces 36.80 GPixel/s and 73.60 GTexel/s, while the RTX 5070 SUPER reaches 201.0 GPixel/s and 502.4 GTexel/s. The RTX 5070 SUPER has 50 ray tracing cores and 200 tensor cores, while the Intel part has 4 ray tracing cores and no tensor core count listed. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. Display outputs differ: the Intel IGP’s outputs are portable device dependent, while the RTX 5070 SUPER offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. Release dates place the Intel part on 2026-01-26 and the RTX 5070 SUPER on 2025-12-31, making the NVIDIA card earlier by about a month. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher recorded benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER has a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2690. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: How does the RTX 5070 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M with an average score of 2664, which is 1 percent lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 scores 2662 (1.1 percent lower), the Intel Arc Pro B50 scores 2660 (1.1 percent lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 scores 2645 (1.7 percent lower).

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with system shared type, bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER has 18 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER has 6400 shading units. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has 512 shading units.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W and uses no power connectors. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER has a TDP of 275 W and requires a 1x 16-pin power connector.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs. The only benchmark recorded for either part is the RTX 5070 SUPER’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2690. This score, when compared to its nearest rivals, shows a narrow margin: the Quadro K1100M trails by 1 percent, the GT 1030 by 1.1 percent, the Intel Arc Pro B50 by 1.1 percent, and the GT 440 by 1.7 percent. These deltas are small, indicating that the RTX 5070 SUPER’s recorded performance is statistically close to those older parts. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has an average benchmark score of 0 and no benchmark list, so no direct comparison can be made from the data. The wins count in the head-to-head table is 0 for both parts, confirming the absence of recorded matchups. The RTX 5070 SUPER’s percentile rank of 18 places it in the lower quarter of all GPUs in the database, despite its high-end specification sheet. The Intel part’s 50th percentile is a placeholder value, not a measured result, since its average score is 0. The largest numerical advantage in the recorded data belongs to the RTX 5070 SUPER in shading units, where it has 6400 versus 512, a 12.5 times difference. Texture mapping units show a similar ratio: 200 versus 32, or 6.25 times. Render output units are 80 versus 16, a 5 times difference. Ray tracing cores number 50 versus 4, a 12.5 times difference. FP32 throughput is 32.15 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS, a 13.65 times difference. Memory bandwidth is 672.0 GB/s versus system dependent, and the RTX 5070 SUPER has 18 GB of dedicated GDDR7 versus system shared memory. Pixel rate is 201.0 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s, a 5.46 times difference. Texture rate is 502.4 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s, a 6.83 times difference. The RTX 5070 SUPER also has a higher boost clock at 2512 MHz versus 2300 MHz, and a higher base clock at 2325 MHz versus 300 MHz. The only categories where the Intel part leads are TDP (25 W versus 275 W) and the absence of power connectors, which reflects its integrated nature.

Specification Differences

The specification fields where the two parts differ are numerous. The process node is 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. The foundry is Intel versus TSMC. The chip is Panther Lake versus GB205. The architecture is Xe3-LPG versus Blackwell 2.0. The generation is Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) versus GeForce 50. The transistor count is unknown versus 31,100 million. The die size is unknown versus 263 mm². The transistor density is null versus 118.3M per mm². The base clock is 300 MHz versus 2325 MHz. The boost clock is 2300 MHz versus 2512 MHz. The memory clock is system shared versus 1750 MHz 28 Gbps effective. The memory size is system shared versus 18 GB. The memory type is system shared versus GDDR7. The memory bus width is system shared versus 192 bit. The memory bandwidth is system dependent versus 672.0 GB/s. The shading units are 512 versus 6400. The TMUs are 32 versus 200. The ROPs are 16 versus 80. The RT cores are 4 versus 50. The tensor cores are null versus 200. The pixel rate is 36.80 GPixel/s versus 201.0 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 73.60 GTexel/s versus 502.4 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 2.355 TFLOPS versus 32.15 TFLOPS. The FP16 performance is 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 32.15 TFLOPS (1:1). The TDP is 25 W versus 275 W. The slot width is IGP versus dual-slot. The power connectors are none versus 1x 16-pin. The bus interface is IGP versus PCIe 5.0 x16. The display outputs are portable device dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The dimensions are null versus 245 mm length, 115 mm height, and 40 mm width. The release date is 2026-01-26 versus 2025-12-31. The series is null for Intel versus GeForce 50-series for NVIDIA. The percentile is 50 versus 18. The average benchmark score is 0 versus 2690. The launch MSRP is null for both. The production status is active for both. The API support is identical, with both at DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The database records no predecessor or successor for either part. The Intel part’s memory clock, size, type, and bus width are all listed as system shared, while the RTX 5070 SUPER has dedicated values for each. The Intel IGP requires no power connectors, while the RTX 5070 SUPER needs a 1x 16-pin connector. The RTX 5070 SUPER’s dimensions are specified in millimeters and inches, while the Intel part has no dimensions listed. The slot width and bus interface for the Intel part are both IGP, indicating it is integrated into a processor package, whereas the RTX 5070 SUPER uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and a dual-slot form factor. The display output configuration reflects this difference: portable device dependent for the IGP versus a fixed set of ports for the discrete card. The release timing shows the NVIDIA part launched on 2025-12-31, and the Intel part launched on 2026-01-26, a difference of about four weeks. The FP16 ratio is 2:1 for the Intel part and 1:1 for the NVIDIA part, meaning the Intel part halves its FP16 throughput relative to FP32, while the NVIDIA part does not. The transistor density, computed from the known transistor count and die size, is 118.3M per mm² for the NVIDIA part, while the Intel part has no density value. The RTX 5070 SUPER’s texture rate of 502.4 GTexel/s is more than six times the Intel part’s 73.60 GTexel/s. The pixel rate of 201.0 GPixel/s is more than five times the Intel part’s 36.80 GPixel/s. The RT core count of 50 versus 4 indicates a much larger ray tracing capability for the NVIDIA card, and the tensor core count of 200 versus null shows that the Intel part has no listed tensor cores. The shading unit difference is the most pronounced, with 6400 versus 512, which drives the large FP32 throughput gap. The memory bandwidth of 672.0 GB/s for the RTX 5070 SUPER is fixed, while the Intel part’s bandwidth is system dependent, meaning it varies with the host system’s memory configuration. The 18 GB GDDR7 memory on the NVIDIA card is dedicated, while the Intel part shares system memory. The power draw difference is 10 times, with the NVIDIA card at 275 W and the Intel IGP at 25 W. The bus interface difference is fundamental: IGP versus PCIe 5.0 x16, which dictates that the Intel part cannot be installed in a desktop expansion slot, while the NVIDIA card requires a PCIe 5.0 x16 slot and a dual-slot chassis space. The display output difference is also structural, with the Intel part relying on the portable device’s integrated display connections and the NVIDIA card providing its own HDMI and DisplayPort outputs. The release date order places the NVIDIA card first, followed by the Intel part, though both are currently active in production. The database lists no MSRP for either, so no launch pricing information exists. The RTX 5070 SUPER’s benchmark percentile of 18 is low, indicating that most other GPUs in the database score higher, while the Intel part’s 50th percentile is a default value given its lack of benchmark entries.