Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

The Verdict

The data positions these two accelerators at opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is an integrated GPU for portable devices, built on a 3 nm process with a 25 W TDP and no dedicated memory. The NVIDIA H20 is a server-grade module on the Hopper architecture, using a 5 nm process, a 500 W TDP, and 96 GB of HBM3 memory with a 6144-bit bus. Benchmark results, where available, show no head-to-head scores, but the recorded specification data indicates that the H20 dominates in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and tensor processing, while the Intel part is constrained to its role as a system-shared, low-power integrated solution.

For users operating data-center workloads requiring massive parallel compute and high-bandwidth memory, the NVIDIA H20 is the only viable option from this comparison. Its FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS and FP16 of 79.07 TFLOPS, combined with 312 tensor cores, deliver server-class performance. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, with 512 shading units and 2.355 TFLOPS FP32, serves portable devices where power draw and physical footprint are the primary constraints. The data shows no scenario where the integrated Intel part outperforms the H20 in absolute terms; the selection depends entirely on the deployment context.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Panther Lake chip, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel. Its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a fully featured graphics API implementation for client devices. The NVIDIA H20 uses the Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The H20 does not support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, as its API set is marked N/A, reflecting its compute-focused server role.

The Intel part includes 4 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the H20's recorded specification, which lists no RT cores. The H20 instead provides 312 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists no tensor cores. Clock behavior differs substantially: the Intel GPU runs at a base of 300 MHz and boosts to 2300 MHz, while the H20 operates at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with no dedicated size, type, bus width, or bandwidth figures; the database records "System Shared" and "System Dependent" for these fields. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 across a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in portability and power efficiency. Its 25 W TDP, IGP slot width, and absence of power connectors make it suitable for laptops and compact devices where dedicated graphics cards cannot fit. The display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," confirming its integration into mobile systems. Its 3 nm process node represents a more advanced manufacturing technology compared to the H20's 5 nm node, which contributes to its lower power envelope. The Intel part also supports a full graphics API stack, including ray tracing, which is absent from the H20.

The NVIDIA H20 wins in every measurable compute and memory category. Its FP32 performance is 16.8 times higher than the Intel part (39.54 TFLOPS vs. 2.355 TFLOPS). Its FP16 performance is 16.8 times higher (79.07 TFLOPS vs. 4.710 TFLOPS). Texture rate reaches 617.8 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s, a factor of 8.4. Pixel rate is 47.52 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s, a 1.29 times advantage. The H20 has 9984 shading units versus 512, 312 TMUs versus 32, and 312 tensor cores versus none. Memory bandwidth is 4.03 TB/s, which the Intel part cannot match due to its system-shared design. The H20 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Intel part uses an integrated bus. The H20's 500 W TDP and suggested PSU of 900 W reflect its data-center orientation, with no display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS FP32. The H20 is approximately 16.8 times faster in this metric.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel part lists 4 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA H20 has no recorded ray tracing cores, and its API support is marked N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system-shared memory with no dedicated size or bandwidth figures; the database records "System Shared" for size, type, and bus width, with bandwidth marked "System Dependent." The NVIDIA H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has 9984 shading units, compared to 512 on the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. The H20 also has 312 TMUs versus 32, and 24 ROPs versus 16.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a TDP of 25 W and uses no power connectors, functioning as an integrated GPU. The NVIDIA H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested power supply of 900 W, with an SXM Module slot width.

Q: What process nodes are used for these GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA H20 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two GPUs, and neither part has recorded benchmark scores or rival comparisons. The percentile for both is 50, and the average benchmark score is 0 for each. The wins fields show zero for both sides. However, the recorded specification data provides a clear quantitative comparison across multiple performance metrics.

The largest advantage for the NVIDIA H20 appears in FP32 and FP16 throughput. The H20's FP32 of 39.54 TFLOPS is 16.8 times the Intel part's 2.355 TFLOPS. In FP16, the H20's 79.07 TFLOPS is 16.8 times the Intel part's 4.710 TFLOPS. The texture rate shows a similar disparity: 617.8 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s, an 8.4 times difference. The shading unit count differs by a factor of 19.5 (9984 vs. 512), and the TMU count differs by a factor of 9.75 (312 vs. 32).

The pixel rate is closer but still favors the H20: 47.52 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s, a 1.29 times advantage. This smaller gap reflects the Intel part's relatively higher ROP efficiency per shading unit, though the absolute output remains lower. The memory bandwidth difference is not directly comparable because the Intel part relies on system-shared memory with a bandwidth marked as system dependent. The H20's 4.03 TB/s bandwidth over a 6144-bit bus is a fixed specification, whereas the Intel part's bandwidth cannot be quantified from the recorded data.

The clock speeds show interesting characteristics. The Intel part has a higher boost clock at 2300 MHz compared to the H20's 1980 MHz, but a much lower base clock at 300 MHz versus 1830 MHz. The H20's memory clock of 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective) is not applicable to the Intel part, which uses system-shared memory. The transistor count and die size are only recorded for the H20 (80,000 million transistors, 814 mm²), while the Intel part's values are unknown.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a Panther Lake chip, while the NVIDIA H20 uses the Hopper architecture on a GH100 chip. The process nodes are 3 nm (Intel) and 5 nm (TSMC). The Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size; the H20 has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die with a density of 98.3M per mm².

Clock specifications differ: the Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 2300 MHz boost, while the H20 runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. The memory systems are entirely different: the Intel part uses system-shared memory with no dedicated size, type, bus width, or bandwidth; the H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The shading unit counts are 512 for Intel and 9984 for NVIDIA. TMU counts are 32 versus 312. ROP counts are 16 versus 24. The Intel part has 4 ray tracing cores; the H20 has none. The H20 has 312 tensor cores; the Intel part has none.

Pixel rate is 36.80 GPixel/s for Intel and 47.52 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 73.60 GTexel/s for Intel and 617.8 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 2.355 TFLOPS for Intel and 39.54 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 4.710 TFLOPS for Intel and 79.07 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. The TDP is 25 W for Intel and 500 W for NVIDIA. The Intel part has an IGP slot width and no power connectors; the H20 uses an SXM Module with a suggested PSU of 900 W. The bus interface is IGP for Intel and PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for Intel and "No outputs" for NVIDIA. The API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for Intel, while all APIs are marked N/A for NVIDIA. The Intel part has a release date of 2026-01-26, while the H20 has a release date of 2024-01-31. The H20 lists its predecessor as Server Ada and successor as Server Blackwell; the Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor.