Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two integrated graphics processors. Both entries have empty benchmark result arrays, zero recorded wins, and an average benchmark score of zero. This means the comparison must be built from the architectural and specification data recorded in the database, rather than from measured performance deltas. The absence of benchmark data is itself informative: it indicates that neither part has been subjected to the standard test suite used by the database, so any performance assessment is necessarily derived from the physical and clock specifications on file.

The most significant numerical gap between the two parts is in raw compute throughput. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile records an FP32 rate of 1,382.4 GFLOPS, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile records 384.0 GFLOPS. That is a 3.6x difference in single-precision floating-point performance. In FP16 compute, the 48EU part reaches 2.765 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) for the 24EU part, which is also a 3.6x gap. These figures are direct consequences of the shading unit counts: the 48EU mobile part has 384 shading units, the 24EU part has 192. Doubling the shading units, combined with the higher boost clock, produces the full 3.6x compute advantage.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The 48EU part delivers 43.20 GTexel/s and 14.40 GPixel/s. The 24EU part delivers 12.00 GTexel/s and 4.000 GPixel/s. Again, the ratio is 3.6x for both metrics. The texture rate is tied to the TMU count (24 versus 12) and the boost clock, while the pixel rate is tied to the ROP count (8 versus 4) and the boost clock. Because the 48EU part has exactly twice the TMUs, twice the ROPs, and a boost clock of 1800 MHz versus 1000 MHz, the combined effect is that 3.6x multiplier across all rasterization-limited workloads.

Clock speed is a secondary but meaningful differentiator. Both parts share a 300 MHz base clock, but the boost clocks diverge sharply: 1800 MHz for the 48EU part versus 1000 MHz for the 24EU part. This 800 MHz difference compounds the core count advantage. Had both parts shared the same boost clock, the 48EU part would still have a 2x advantage from shading units alone. The additional clock lift pushes the advantage to 3.6x. This suggests the 48EU part is designed for sustained higher-frequency operation, likely in a larger thermal envelope.

Neither part has any recorded wins in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs tracked. The 50th percentile ranking for both is notable because it implies that, despite the large internal differences, both parts occupy a similar position in the overall distribution of GPU performance. This is likely because both are integrated graphics solutions intended for low-power mobile devices, and the database's percentile ranking accounts for all GPU types, including discrete parts that dwarf both of these.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different Intel architectures. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture and is built on the Meteor Lake chip. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture and is built on the Twin Lake chip. Both are manufactured by Intel on a 10 nm process node, so the process technology is identical. The architectural lineage differs: the 48EU part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation for Meteor Lake, while the 24EU part belongs to the HD Graphics-T generation for Twin Lake.

The Xe-LPG architecture in the 48EU part is the newer design, and it is paired with a substantially higher power envelope. The 48EU part has a TDP of 28 W, while the 24EU part has a TDP of 6 W. That is a 4.67x difference in thermal design power. This explains the boost clock disparity: the 48EU part can sustain 1800 MHz because it is allowed to draw nearly five times the power. The 24EU part, limited to 6 W, can only reach 1000 MHz. The base clocks are identical at 300 MHz, which suggests both parts idle at the same frequency but diverge under load.

Core counts differ across every functional unit. The 48EU part has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The 24EU part has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Every unit is exactly doubled in the larger part. Neither part has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so the architectural comparison is purely about the traditional graphics pipeline. The 48EU part has no listed RT or tensor core counts, and the same is true for the 24EU part, so ray tracing and AI acceleration are not differentiators here.

Memory configuration is identical in structure. Both parts use system-shared memory with a system-shared bus width and system-dependent bandwidth. Neither part has dedicated VRAM. The memory clock is listed as "System Shared" for both, meaning the memory speed is tied to the host system's RAM rather than a fixed value. This means actual memory bandwidth performance will vary depending on the laptop or tablet in which each GPU is installed.

The API support is the same for both parts. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means software compatibility is not a distinguishing factor. Both parts use a Ring Bus interface and are packaged as IGPs (integrated graphics processors) with portable-device-dependent display outputs. Neither part has a discrete power connector, and neither has a suggested PSU rating, which is expected for integrated solutions.

The production status for both is Active. The release dates differ: the 48EU part was released on 2023-12-13, while the 24EU part was released on 2024-12-31. The 48EU part has a listed predecessor, HD Graphics-M, while the 24EU part has no predecessor listed. Neither part has a successor listed. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database, so no pricing information is available.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile wins in every raw performance metric recorded in the database. It has a 3.6x higher FP32 throughput, a 3.6x higher FP16 throughput, a 3.6x higher texture fill rate, and a 3.6x higher pixel fill rate compared to the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. For any workload that stresses the graphics pipeline, the 48EU part is clearly superior. This includes 3D rendering, modern game rendering, and compute workloads that rely on shader throughput. The higher boost clock of 1800 MHz also suggests the 48EU part can maintain higher sustained performance in bursty workloads.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in power efficiency. With a TDP of 6 W versus 28 W, the 24EU part draws less than a quarter of the power of the 48EU part. For fanless designs, ultra-portable laptops, or devices where battery life is the primary concern, the 24EU part is the more appropriate choice. The 24EU part also has a lower boost clock of 1000 MHz, which means less heat generation and potentially quieter operation in thin chassis. The 24EU part is built on the same 10 nm process, but its lower power envelope makes it suitable for a different class of device.

Use-case separation is clear. The 48EU part is for devices that need meaningful graphics performance, such as mainstream ultrabooks with higher-resolution displays, light gaming, or media creation tasks. The 28 W TDP allows the GPU to operate at higher frequencies for longer periods, and the 3.6x compute advantage means it can handle more complex shaders and higher resolutions. The 24EU part is for devices where power consumption is the dominant constraint, such as entry-level notebooks, tablets, or embedded systems. Its 6 W TDP allows it to fit into thermally constrained designs where a 28 W part would require active cooling.

The percentile ranking for both parts is identical at 50th percentile among all GPUs. This is a neutral data point: it neither indicates a clear win nor a loss for either part in the broader GPU landscape. The database's percentile is based on all tracked GPUs, which includes discrete desktop parts that dwarf both integrated solutions. The fact that both sit at the 50th percentile suggests that the database's ranking is inclusive of many low-end integrated parts, and both of these fall in the middle of that distribution.

Neither part has any recorded benchmark wins in the database, and neither has any nearest rivals listed. This means there is no comparative performance data against other GPUs. The wins, therefore, are entirely derived from the specification tables. In every specification-based comparison, the 48EU part wins on raw capability, and the 24EU part wins on power consumption.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has significantly higher compute throughput. It delivers 1,382.4 GFLOPS FP32 and 2.765 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), compared to 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 (2:1) for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W. The 24EU part draws less than a quarter of the power of the 48EU part.

Q: Are the architectures different?

A: Yes. The 48EU part uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Meteor Lake chip, while the 24EU part uses the Xe-LP architecture on the Twin Lake chip. Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no difference in API compatibility.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The 48EU part has a boost clock of 1800 MHz, while the 24EU part has a boost clock of 1000 MHz. Both have a base clock of 300 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has a pixel rate of 14.40 GPixel/s, compared to 4.000 GPixel/s for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. This is a 3.6x difference.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile | Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile |

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

| Architecture | Xe-LPG | Xe-LP |

| Chip | Meteor Lake | Twin Lake |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) | HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 10 nm |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1800 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Shading Units | 384 | 192 |

| TMUs | 24 | 12 |

| ROPs | 8 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.40 GPixel/s | 4.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 43.20 GTexel/s | 12.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,382.4 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.765 TFLOPS (2:1) | 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 6 W |

| Release Date | 2023-12-13 | 2024-12-31 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-M | None |

The two parts share several characteristics: the same 10 nm process node, the same base clock, system-shared memory, Ring Bus interface, IGP form factor, and identical API support. The differences are concentrated in the core configuration, clock speeds, power envelope, and release timing. The 48EU part is the larger, faster, and more power-hungry design, while the 24EU part is the smaller, slower, and more power-efficient option. Both parts have the same 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database.