Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile or the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the average benchmark score for both entries is 0. Neither unit registers a win in the comparison table. This absence of measured data means the database cannot confirm a performance advantage for either part based on direct testing. The percentile ranking for both GPUs sits at 50, which indicates they occupy the median position in the overall database distribution, but this percentile is derived from an empty benchmark sample and should not be interpreted as a validated performance tier.

Without benchmark scores, the only quantitative comparisons available come from theoretical specifications. The NVIDIA part shows a raw FP32 throughput of 24.72 TFLOPS, while the Intel part shows 2.355 TFLOPS. That is a factor of roughly 10.5 in favor of NVIDIA based on the listed peak compute figures. The pixel rate for NVIDIA is 133.2 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s for Intel, a 3.6x gap. The texture rate for NVIDIA is 386.3 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s for Intel, a 5.2x gap. These numbers come from the specification fields, not from any executed workload, so they represent theoretical ceilings rather than observed results.

The memory subsystem tells a similar story. The NVIDIA part uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The NVIDIA memory clock is listed at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective transfer. The Intel memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning the memory speed depends on the host platform rather than the GPU itself. The NVIDIA part shows a substantial bandwidth advantage on paper, but again, no benchmark confirms how this translates into real application performance.

The absence of head-to-head data is the central finding here. The database records zero wins for each side, zero benchmark entries, and zero average scores. Any conclusion about which GPU outperforms the other must rest entirely on the specification differences, not on measured results.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, different foundries, and different architectural generations. Intel uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process node, built at Intel's own foundry. The chip is named Panther Lake and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. NVIDIA uses Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm process node, built at TSMC. The chip is named AD104 and belongs to the Ada-MW generation within the GeForce 40-series.

The NVIDIA chip has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The Intel chip has unknown transistor count and die size, so no density figure exists in the database. The NVIDIA part lists its predecessor as Ampere-MW and its successor as Blackwell-MW, giving it a clear generational position. The Intel part lists no predecessor and no successor.

The compute unit counts differ sharply. NVIDIA uses 7424 shading units, 232 texture mapping units, 80 ROPs, 58 ray tracing cores, and 232 tensor cores. Intel uses 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has no tensor core entry in the database. NVIDIA's FP16 throughput is listed at 24.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it processes FP16 at the same rate as FP32. Intel's FP16 is 4.710 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 runs at twice the FP32 rate of 2.355 TFLOPS.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are integrated-class mobile GPUs with slot width listed as IGP, no power connectors, and portable device dependent display outputs. The Intel part uses an IGP bus interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The TDP values differ: Intel at 25 W and NVIDIA at 110 W. The NVIDIA part has a 12 GB dedicated GDDR6 frame buffer; the Intel part relies entirely on system memory.

Release dates also differ. The Intel part is dated 2026-01-26, while the NVIDIA part is dated 2023-03-20. Both are marked as active production status. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but narrow conclusion: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation carries substantially higher theoretical specifications across every measurable compute category, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile operates at a fraction of the power envelope. The NVIDIA part shows 24.72 TFLOPS FP32, 133.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, 386.3 GTexel/s texture rate, 12 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part shows 2.355 TFLOPS FP32, 36.80 GPixel/s pixel rate, 73.60 GTexel/s texture rate, system shared memory, and system dependent bandwidth.

The NVIDIA part also includes tensor cores and a much larger set of ray tracing cores: 232 tensor cores and 58 RT cores versus zero tensor cores and 4 RT cores for Intel. The transistor budget difference is enormous, with NVIDIA at 35,800 million transistors versus unknown for Intel. The NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm TSMC process, while Intel uses a 3 nm Intel process, which suggests a denser node for Intel but with far fewer active units.

The power draw difference is the most consequential specification for mobile use. Intel lists 25 W TDP, NVIDIA lists 110 W TDP. The NVIDIA part delivers higher theoretical performance but consumes over four times the power. The Intel part is designed for system shared memory and integrated operation, while the NVIDIA part uses a dedicated 12 GB GDDR6 buffer. The NVIDIA part is also older in the database, with a 2023 release date versus 2026 for Intel.

The database cannot confirm performance in actual workloads because no benchmark scores exist. The verdict must therefore be: the NVIDIA part is the higher-specification GPU by every listed compute and memory metric, and the Intel part is the lower-power integrated alternative. Users looking for peak theoretical throughput, dedicated memory, and tensor core support should select the NVIDIA part. Users constrained to a 25 W power budget and system shared memory should select the Intel part. Neither recommendation is based on measured benchmark results, because the database contains none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation lists 24.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile lists 2.355 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: The NVIDIA part uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel GPU have tensor cores?

A: No. The database lists no tensor core entry for the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. The NVIDIA part lists 232 tensor cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Intel part lists a TDP of 25 W. The NVIDIA part lists a TDP of 110 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

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

Q: Are there any benchmark scores in the database for either GPU?

A: No. Both entries have an empty benchmark array and an average benchmark score of 0.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in power efficiency based on the recorded TDP figure. At 25 W, it draws less than a quarter of the NVIDIA part's 110 W. It also uses a smaller process node at 3 nm versus 5 nm, which suggests a more modern manufacturing approach. The Intel part has a higher boost clock relative to its base clock: 2300 MHz boost versus 300 MHz base, compared to NVIDIA's 1665 MHz boost versus 1290 MHz base. The Intel part also has a later release date in the database, 2026-01-26 versus 2023-03-20.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation wins in every listed compute and memory category. It has more shading units (7424 versus 512), more TMUs (232 versus 32), more ROPs (80 versus 16), more ray tracing cores (58 versus 4), and tensor cores that the Intel part lacks entirely. Its FP32 throughput is over ten times higher, its pixel rate is over three times higher, and its texture rate is over five times higher. It has dedicated 12 GB GDDR6 memory with a fixed 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel part depends on system memory. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part uses an IGP interface.

The database shows no benchmark wins for either side, so the "wins" here are strictly specification-based. For workloads that rely on raw compute, dedicated memory bandwidth, ray tracing, or tensor operations, the NVIDIA part has the clear specification advantage. For workloads that demand minimal power draw and integration into a system shared memory environment, the Intel part has the advantage. The NVIDIA part also has a known transistor count of 35,800 million and a die size of 294 mm², while the Intel part has neither figure recorded.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile | NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | NVIDIA |

| Series | null | GeForce 40-series |

| Chip | Panther Lake | AD104 |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) | Ada-MW |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | unknown | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1290 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2300 MHz | 1665 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 432.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 7424 |

| TMUs | 32 | 232 |

| ROPs | 16 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 4 | 58 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 232 |

| Pixel Rate | 36.80 GPixel/s | 133.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 73.60 GTexel/s | 386.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.355 TFLOPS | 24.72 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) | 24.72 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 110 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Release Date | 2026-01-26 | 2023-03-20 |

| Predecessor | null | Ampere-MW |

| Successor | null | Blackwell-MW |

The two parts share identical API support, display outputs, slot width, power connector configuration, and production status. Both are listed as active, both use IGP slot width, both have no power connectors, and both have portable device dependent display outputs. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.