Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data places the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation in a substantially higher performance tier than the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. The Intel part has no benchmark scores in the database, while the NVIDIA adapter has a full suite of measurements, producing an average benchmark score of 18,954. The NVIDIA GPU sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel integrated graphics sits at the 50th percentile, a gap that underscores the different performance classes these two parts occupy.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers a peak FP32 compute throughput of 12.00 TFLOPS, which is roughly five times the 2.355 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. This raw compute advantage appears across every workload category. In the Passmark G3D test, the NVIDIA card scores 16,927 points, with additional DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores of 216, 82, 138, and 71 respectively. The Intel part has no corresponding score in any of these tests, so the database records no wins for the Intel component in any benchmark category.

The closest rivals to the RTX 2000 Ada Generation provide useful context. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 averages 19,030 points, which is 0.4% higher than the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 also averages 19,036 points, also 0.4% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile averages 19,049 points, 0.5% higher. The NVIDIA Tesla K80 averages 18,866 points, which is 0.5% lower than the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. These deltas show the RTX 2000 Ada Generation sitting in a tight cluster with several established desktop and mobile GPUs. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has no nearest rivals listed, so its relative standing can only be inferred from its percentile position.

The compute-oriented Passmark GPU test shows the NVIDIA card scoring 7,834 points, while the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results reach 78,074 and 83,360 respectively. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields 1,767 points. None of these measurements exist for the Intel part. The data confirms a complete absence of head-to-head benchmark entries, meaning the Intel integrated solution cannot be positioned against the NVIDIA discrete card in any measured workload.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Panther Lake chip built on Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated at a 3 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured at TSMC on a 5 nm process. The NVIDIA part lists 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The Intel part lists unknown transistor counts and die size, so no density comparison is possible from the recorded data.

The NVIDIA GPU has 2,816 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. It also includes 22 ray tracing cores and 88 tensor cores. The Intel GPU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. It includes 4 ray tracing cores but lists no tensor cores. The NVIDIA part therefore delivers more than five times the shading units, more than double the TMUs, and triple the ROPs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature parity exists despite the large hardware gap.

Memory configurations differ fundamentally. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is listed at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory, with the bus width and type also listed as system shared. Its memory bandwidth is described as system dependent, meaning it relies entirely on the host platform. The NVIDIA card has a dedicated 16 GB pool, which removes any dependency on system memory allocation.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 2300 MHz. The NVIDIA card runs at 1620 MHz base and boosts to 2130 MHz. Despite the higher base clock on the NVIDIA side, the Intel part has a higher boost frequency. However, the NVIDIA card's much larger execution resource count offsets any clock advantage the Intel part might claim. The pixel rate for the NVIDIA card is 102.2 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s for the Intel part. The texture rate is 187.4 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s.

Power and physical form factor differ significantly. The Intel GPU has a 25 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors and an IGP bus interface. The NVIDIA card has a 70 W TDP, uses a dual-slot form factor, has no power connectors, and recommends a 250 W system power supply. It connects via PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the Intel part is portable device dependent, while the NVIDIA card provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in terms of power efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is less than half the 70 W TDP of the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation. It requires no dedicated power connector and uses system shared memory, which reduces component count and board complexity. For compact portable devices, the IGP form factor eliminates the need for a discrete card slot. The higher boost clock of 2300 MHz also gives the Intel part a modest clock advantage, though this does not translate into benchmark wins because no benchmark data exists for it.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins in every measured performance category. The recorded benchmarks show strong results across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests, plus OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. Its 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent memory performance that does not depend on the host system. The 88 tensor cores and 22 ray tracing cores give it specialized hardware for AI and ray tracing workloads. The dual-slot form factor and 250 W suggested PSU indicate a desktop or workstation deployment rather than a mobile integrated solution.

The NVIDIA card's 63rd percentile ranking versus the Intel part's 50th percentile places them in different performance brackets. The nearest rivals for the NVIDIA card, all within 0.5% of its average score, include desktop workstation cards and mobile GPUs. This positions the RTX 2000 Ada Generation as a mid-range performer in the broader GPU landscape. The Intel part, with no benchmark scores, cannot be placed relative to any specific rival in the database.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation for any workload requiring measured graphics performance. Its 12.00 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 16 GB dedicated memory, and full suite of benchmark scores across multiple APIs make it a functional discrete GPU. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, with no benchmark scores and a 50th percentile standing, cannot match any of these recorded results. The NVIDIA card's 63rd percentile, combined with an average score of 18,954, places it in a competitive range with the Quadro K6000, Radeon RX 6600, Tesla K80, and RTX 4050 Mobile.

For systems where power draw and physical footprint are the primary constraints, the Intel part offers a 25 W TDP integrated solution. It needs no power connector, no expansion slot, and no separate memory. The NVIDIA card needs 70 W, a dual-slot space, and a 250 W system PSU. The choice depends on whether the system requires discrete GPU performance or integrated simplicity. The data shows no scenario where the Intel part outperforms the NVIDIA card in any measured benchmark, so users needing verified performance should select the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation. Users constrained by power and space, and who do not need discrete performance, can use the Intel integrated solution.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Intel part lists no benchmark entries and has an average benchmark score of 0. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 10 recorded benchmark scores with an average of 18,954.

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation compare to its closest rivals?

A: It scores within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19,030, 0.4% higher), AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, 0.4% higher), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, 0.5% higher), and NVIDIA Tesla K80 (18,866, 0.5% lower).

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers 12.00 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card provides roughly five times the FP32 throughput.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 70 W TDP and suggests a 250 W system power supply. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a 25 W TDP and no power connectors.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

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

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation |

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

| Chip | Panther Lake | AD107 |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Unknown | 18,900 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 159 mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1620 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2300 MHz | 2130 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 2816 |

| TMUs | 32 | 88 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 4 | 22 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 88 |

| Pixel Rate | 36.80 GPixel/s | 102.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 73.60 GTexel/s | 187.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.355 TFLOPS | 12.00 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) | 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2026-01-26 | 2024-02-11 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 649 USD |

| Production Status | Active | Active |