Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a complete separation in workload applicability between these two mobile graphics solutions. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has no benchmark entries in the database, meaning there are zero recorded wins for this part across any test suite. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell, conversely, has nine recorded benchmark scores spanning DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, Vulkan, compute, and 2D graphics tests. Every one of those nine entries is a win for the NVIDIA part by default, since the Intel component has no measurable data to contest them.

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell delivers its strongest relative performance in the Passmark G3D test with a score of 28,427, which represents the highest single-test result in its recorded suite. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test produces a score of 4,648, which is a demanding next-generation rasterization workload. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 194,168 indicates strong cross-platform API performance, while the Passmark GPU Compute score of 14,805 shows the part handles general-purpose compute workloads effectively. The older DirectX API tests show scores of 354 for DirectX 9, 276 for DirectX 11, 173 for DirectX 10, and 97 for DirectX 12, with the Passmark G2D score of 1,265 covering 2D graphics operations.

The Intel part is specified for integrated graphics use with a 25 W TDP, system-shared memory, and no dedicated power connectors. Its architectural parameters include 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The recorded FP32 throughput is 2.355 TFLOPS, and the texture rate is 73.60 GTexel/s. Those figures are substantially lower than the NVIDIA part's 36.83 TFLOPS FP32 and 575.4 GTexel/s texture rate. The database contains no benchmark scores for the Intel part, so its percentile ranking sits at 50, which is the median default for unmeasured hardware. The NVIDIA part ranks at the 72nd percentile across all GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different manufacturing processes and design philosophies. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell uses a 5 nm process node from TSMC. Intel's chip is codenamed Panther Lake and uses the Xe3-LPG architecture within the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. NVIDIA's chip is the GB203 with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Blackwell PRO W (x000) generation.

Transistor counts differ dramatically. The NVIDIA GB203 contains 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 120.6M per mm². The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, so no direct comparison is possible on those metrics.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1230 MHz and a boost clock of 2055 MHz. While the Intel part boosts higher, its substantially smaller shader array means the clock advantage does not translate into competitive throughput. The NVIDIA memory clock is listed as 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective data rate.

Memory configuration represents a fundamental architectural split. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system-shared memory with a system-shared bus width and system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell has 24 GB of dedicated GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory arrangement is critical for workloads that require repeated memory access, since the shared memory approach on the Intel part is inherently limited by system memory performance.

The shader and fixed-function hardware counts show a wide gap. NVIDIA's part has 8,960 shading units, 280 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 70 ray tracing cores, and 280 tensor cores. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores, with tensor cores listed as null in the database. The pixel rate for the NVIDIA part is 197.3 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s for Intel, and the texture rate is 575.4 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s. FP16 performance also differs in ratio: the Intel part delivers 4.710 TFLOPS with a 2:1 FP16-to-FP32 ratio, while the NVIDIA part delivers 36.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

Power and physical design are polar opposites. The Intel part has a 25 W TDP, uses an integrated graphics processor (IGP) slot width, has no power connectors, and relies on the portable device for display outputs. The NVIDIA part has a 140 W TDP, uses a single-slot form factor, requires a 1x 16-pin power connector, suggests a 300 W power supply, uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, and provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. The NVIDIA card measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The Intel part has no recorded dimensions.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a recorded release date of March 17, 2025, while the Intel part has a release date of January 26, 2026. NVIDIA lists Workstation Ada as its predecessor, and both parts have an active production status.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell is the only one of these two parts with measurable performance. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores, no average score, and no rival comparisons in the database. Its percentile ranking of 50 is a default value for unmeasured hardware, not a reflection of actual tested performance.

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell sits at the 72nd percentile across all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27,135. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT with an average score of 27,425 and a delta of -1.1%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile with an average score of 27,435 and a delta of -1.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 with an average score of 27,565 and a delta of -1.6%. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 trails at 26,683 with a delta of 1.7%. These deltas place the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell within roughly 2% of three established desktop and mobile parts, which indicates it performs at a level comparable to those products despite its workstation orientation.

For users selecting between these two parts strictly from the recorded data, the NVIDIA part is the only option with demonstrated performance. The Intel part is specified for integrated use with a low 25 W TDP, which suits power-constrained portable devices, but its throughput figures are far below the NVIDIA part across every measurable metric. The 2.355 TFLOPS FP32 rate for Intel is roughly 6% of the NVIDIA part's 36.83 TFLOPS, and the 73.60 GTexel/s texture rate is roughly 13% of the NVIDIA part's 575.4 GTexel/s. The Intel part's 36.80 GPixel/s pixel rate is roughly 19% of the NVIDIA part's 197.3 GPixel/s.

The NVIDIA part also offers dedicated 24 GB GDDR7 memory with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel part depends on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. For any workload that stresses memory throughput, the NVIDIA part has a structural advantage that cannot be compensated by the Intel part's higher boost clock. The NVIDIA part's 70 ray tracing cores and 280 tensor cores also provide dedicated acceleration hardware that the Intel part lacks entirely, with tensor cores listed as null.

FAQ

Q: Which part has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell delivers 36.83 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS FP32. The NVIDIA part has a 34.475 TFLOPS advantage in this metric.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each part provide?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, so no fixed bandwidth figure is recorded.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two parts?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a 25 W TDP and uses an integrated graphics processor slot width with no power connectors. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell has a 140 W TDP, uses a single-slot form factor, and requires a 1x 16-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W power supply.

Q: How does the NVIDIA part compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell has an average benchmark score of 27,135. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT by 1.1%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile by 1.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 by 1.6%. It leads the NVIDIA RTX A4000 by 1.7%.

Q: What are the release dates for these parts?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell was released on March 17, 2025. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a release date of January 26, 2026. Both parts have an active production status.

Q: Do both parts support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell 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 between these two parts, and the Intel part has zero recorded benchmark scores of any kind. The comparison therefore relies entirely on the NVIDIA part's nine recorded test results and the Intel part's architectural specifications.

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell's highest recorded score is 194,168 in the Geekbench Vulkan test. This test measures cross-platform GPU compute and graphics performance through the Vulkan API, and the score indicates strong API-level throughput. The Passmark G3D test produces a score of 28,427, which is the second-highest recorded result. This test covers general 3D graphics rendering across multiple DirectX versions. The Passmark GPU Compute score of 14,805 addresses compute shader workloads, and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4,648 represents a modern DirectX 12 rasterization workload.

The older DirectX API tests show lower scores, with Passmark DirectX 9 at 354, Passmark DirectX 11 at 276, Passmark DirectX 10 at 173, and Passmark DirectX 12 at 97. The Passmark G2D score of 1,265 covers 2D graphics operations. These scores span a wide range, which is typical for tests that measure different rendering paths and feature sets.

The Intel part's specifications provide context for what those NVIDIA scores represent. With 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, the Intel part has a shader array that is roughly 17 times smaller than the NVIDIA part's 8,960 shading units. The texture mapping hardware is 8.75 times smaller, and the ROP count is 6 times smaller. The ray tracing core count is 4 versus 70, a 17.5 times difference, and the NVIDIA part has 280 tensor cores that the Intel part does not list at all.

The pixel rate difference is 36.80 GPixel/s versus 197.3 GPixel/s, which means the NVIDIA part can fill frames more than 5 times faster. The texture rate difference is 73.60 GTexel/s versus 575.4 GTexel/s, a factor of roughly 7.8. FP16 throughput shows a ratio difference as well: the Intel part delivers 4.710 TFLOPS with a 2:1 FP16-to-FP32 ratio, while the NVIDIA part delivers 36.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning the NVIDIA part maintains full FP16 throughput at a level 7.8 times higher than the Intel part's peak FP16 rate.

The manufacturing process favors Intel at 3 nm versus 5 nm for TSMC, and the Intel part has a higher boost clock at 2300 MHz versus 2055 MHz. Neither advantage translates into competitive performance, since the NVIDIA part's massive shader count and dedicated memory subsystem dominate every throughput metric. The NVIDIA part also has a much larger physical footprint at 241 mm length versus an integrated design with no recorded dimensions, and its 140 W TDP is 115 W higher than the Intel part's 25 W TDP. Those power and size differences reflect the fundamental design split: the Intel part is an integrated solution for power-constrained portable devices, while the NVIDIA part is a dedicated workstation card with substantial compute resources.