Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA H100 CNX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark matches between the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA H100 CNX. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50 versus all GPUs, which places them at the median of the database distribution but does not reflect any direct comparison data. The absence of benchmark records means no raw performance deltas can be derived from direct testing. What can be compared are the theoretical peak rates and architectural throughput figures recorded in the specification tables.

In raw compute throughput, the NVIDIA H100 CNX delivers 53.84 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 22.86 times the 2.355 TFLOPS of the Intel part. The gap widens in FP16: the H100 CNX reaches 215.4 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio, while the Intel chip manages 4.710 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. That difference represents a 45.7x advantage for the NVIDIA part in half-precision throughput. The texture rate tells a similar story, 841.3 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s, a factor of 11.4. The pixel rate difference is far smaller: 44.28 GPixel/s for the H100 CNX versus 36.80 GPixel/s for the Intel Arc, a 1.20x margin. The NVIDIA part's 456 TMUs dwarf the Intel chip's 32, while the ROP count is closer at 24 versus 16.

The Intel part has no recorded tensor core count in the database, while the NVIDIA H100 CNX lists 456 tensor cores. The Intel chip does include 4 ray tracing cores, a feature the H100 CNX does not list. The H100 CNX holds an overwhelming lead in memory bandwidth at 2.04 TB/s from 80 GB of HBM2e over a 5120-bit bus, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The NVIDIA part also leads in shading units, 14592 versus 512, and in ROPs, 24 versus 16.

Clock behavior is inverted between the two. The Intel chip has a lower base clock of 300 MHz but boosts to 2300 MHz, a 7.67x lift. The NVIDIA part starts at 690 MHz and boosts to 1845 MHz, a 2.67x lift. The H100 CNX's memory clock runs at 1593 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so the percentile of 50 for both is the only comparative ranking available in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX records 53.84 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 22.86 times the 2.355 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses 80 GB of HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus and 2.04 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel part have any compute features the NVIDIA part lacks?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile lists 4 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA H100 CNX does not record any ray tracing cores. The Intel chip also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part has no recorded API support.

Q: What is the transistor and die size difference?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die with a density of 98.3M per mm². The Intel part has unknown transistor count and die size in the database.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz from a 300 MHz base. The NVIDIA H100 CNX boosts to 1845 MHz from a 690 MHz base. The Intel chip has a higher absolute boost clock, but the NVIDIA part has a higher base clock.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is rated at 25 W TDP and uses no power connectors. The NVIDIA H100 CNX is rated at 350 W TDP, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, and the database lists a suggested PSU of 750 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, foundries, and architecture families. Intel builds the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry, using the Xe3-LPG architecture under the Panther Lake chip. NVIDIA builds the H100 CNX on a 5 nm process at TSMC, using the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip. The process node difference of 3 nm versus 5 nm is the only node information in the database, and foundries differ as well.

The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation and integrates graphics into a mobile processor package. The NVIDIA part belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation and is a discrete server accelerator. The Intel chip uses an IGP bus interface and is described as an IGP slot width, meaning it is integrated into a processor rather than installed as a separate card. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and occupies a dual-slot form factor.

Compute resources differ in structure. The Intel chip has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA chip has 14592 shading units, 456 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 456 tensor cores, with no ray tracing core count recorded. The Intel part has no tensor core field populated, while the NVIDIA part has no ray tracing core field populated. The NVIDIA part's tensor core count equals its TMU count at 456, which is a structural detail of the Hopper design.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Intel chip shares system memory, with the bus width and memory type both listed as system shared, and bandwidth depends on the host platform. The NVIDIA chip uses dedicated 80 GB HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus and fixed 2.04 TB/s bandwidth. This makes the NVIDIA memory subsystem a fixed specification, while the Intel memory performance varies with the surrounding system.

Production status differs in timing. The Intel part has a release date of 2026-01-26, while the NVIDIA part was released on 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA part has recorded predecessors and successors in the database: Server Ada as predecessor and Server Blackwell as successor. The Intel part has no predecessor or successor listed. The Intel chip supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA chip has no API support recorded, consistent with a compute-focused accelerator that has no display outputs.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The process node is 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA, and the foundries are Intel and TSMC respectively. Transistor count is unknown for Intel versus 80,000 million for NVIDIA. Die size is unknown for Intel versus 814 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor density is null for Intel versus 98.3M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Base clocks are 300 MHz for Intel versus 690 MHz for NVIDIA. Boost clocks are 2300 MHz for Intel versus 1845 MHz for NVIDIA. The Intel part has no game clock recorded, and the NVIDIA memory clock is 1593 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective, while the Intel memory clock is listed as system shared.

Memory size is system shared for Intel versus 80 GB for NVIDIA. Memory type is system shared for Intel versus HBM2e for NVIDIA. Bus width is system shared for Intel versus 5120 bit for NVIDIA. Bandwidth is system dependent for Intel versus 2.04 TB/s for NVIDIA.

Shading units are 512 for Intel versus 14592 for NVIDIA. TMUs are 32 versus 456. ROPs are 16 versus 24. Ray tracing cores are 4 for Intel versus null for NVIDIA. Tensor cores are null for Intel versus 456 for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 36.80 GPixel/s for Intel versus 44.28 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 73.60 GTexel/s for Intel versus 841.3 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 2.355 TFLOPS for Intel versus 53.84 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel versus 215.4 TFLOPS (4:1) for NVIDIA.

TDP is 25 W for Intel versus 350 W for NVIDIA. Slot width is IGP for Intel versus dual-slot for NVIDIA. Power connectors are none for Intel versus 8-pin EPS for NVIDIA. Suggested PSU is null for Intel versus 750 W for NVIDIA. Bus interface is IGP for Intel versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are portable device dependent for Intel versus no outputs for NVIDIA. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) for Intel versus null for NVIDIA. OpenGL is 4.6 for Intel versus null for NVIDIA. Vulkan is 1.4 for Intel versus null for NVIDIA. Dimensions are unrecorded for Intel, while NVIDIA measures 267 mm by 111 mm. Release dates are 2026-01-26 for Intel versus 2023-03-20 for NVIDIA. Production status is active for both.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA H100 CNX wins decisively in every measured compute throughput category. Its FP32 of 53.84 TFLOPS is 22.86 times the Intel part's 2.355 TFLOPS. Its FP16 of 215.4 TFLOPS is 45.7 times the Intel part's 4.710 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 841.3 GTexel/s is 11.4 times the Intel part's 73.60 GTexel/s. Its 2.04 TB/s memory bandwidth from 80 GB HBM2e is fixed and deterministic, while the Intel part depends on host system memory. The 456 tensor cores give the NVIDIA part a clear path for matrix math workloads, and the 14592 shading units provide massive parallel throughput. The 24 ROPs and 44.28 GPixel/s pixel rate also exceed the Intel part's 16 ROPs and 36.80 GPixel/s, though by a smaller margin of 1.20x. The NVIDIA part also has a higher base clock of 690 MHz and a larger physical footprint at 267 mm length, consistent with a dual-slot server accelerator. Its 814 mm² die and 80,000 million transistors indicate a large, high-power compute device.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in the categories of integration and portability. It uses a 25 W TDP versus 350 W for the NVIDIA part, a 14x power difference. It requires no power connectors, uses an IGP slot width, and has display outputs that are portable device dependent, meaning it is designed to drive displays on mobile systems. The NVIDIA part has no display outputs at all. The Intel chip has a higher boost clock at 2300 MHz versus 1845 MHz, and it includes 4 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the NVIDIA record. The Intel chip supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for graphics and gaming APIs, while the NVIDIA part has no recorded API support. The Intel chip also uses a smaller 3 nm process node versus 5 nm, and its system shared memory model removes the need for dedicated VRAM allocation.

The use-case split follows the hardware record. The NVIDIA H100 CNX is positioned for server compute with its massive FP32 and FP16 throughput, tensor cores, 80 GB HBM2e, and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is positioned for integrated mobile graphics with low power draw, ray tracing support, modern graphics APIs, and portable display outputs. The NVIDIA part's 350 W TDP and 750 W suggested PSU place it in a datacenter power envelope, while the Intel part's 25 W TDP fits within a mobile processor budget. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so these conclusions follow from the specification tables alone. The 50th percentile ranking for both GPUs reflects the absence of benchmark data rather than any measured performance equivalence.