Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two GPUs compared in this database entry?

A: The comparison is between the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile, an integrated graphics processor from Intel, and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU, a server-class accelerator from NVIDIA based on the GR100 chip.

Q: What architectures do these two GPUs use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation on the Meteor Lake chip. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the Rubin architecture, part of the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses system shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, and bus width are all system dependent. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus, delivering 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has 512 shading units, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 28,672 shading units. The NVIDIA part also includes 896 tensor cores, which the Intel part does not list.

Q: What are the production statuses of these GPUs?

A: Both are listed as Active in the database. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile was released on December 13, 2023, and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is dated December 31, 2025.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 28.00 GPixel/s and 56.00 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 54.41 GPixel/s and 2,031.2 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two entries occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is an integrated graphics processor built on the Meteor Lake chip using a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation and uses the Xe-LPG architecture. Its predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-M, and its bus interface is a Ring Bus. The display outputs are described as portable device dependent, confirming its mobile integrated positioning.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server accelerator built on the GR100 chip using a 3 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation and uses the Rubin architecture. Its predecessor is listed as Server Blackwell. The bus interface is PCIe 6.0 x16, and the slot width is an SXM Module. The display outputs field is listed as no outputs, which aligns with its dedicated server role.

The process node difference is substantial: 10 nm for the Intel part versus 3 nm for the NVIDIA part. The NVIDIA chip is built at TSMC, while Intel uses its own foundry. The NVIDIA GR100 die is 1456 mm² with 336,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 230.8M per mm². The Intel part does not list transistor count, die size, or density in the database.

Feature sets diverge sharply. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not oriented toward conventional graphics APIs. Instead, the NVIDIA part carries 896 tensor cores, a feature the Intel part does not list. Neither part lists ray tracing cores in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs. Both have an average benchmark score of 0, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. The wins counters show 0 wins for each side. The nearest rivals lists are empty for both entries.

Because no direct benchmark scores exist, the analysis must rely on the recorded specification data. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU holds decisive advantages in nearly every measured computational category. Its FP32 throughput is 130.0 TFLOPS compared to 1.792 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. That is roughly 72 times higher FP32 compute, a margin that reflects the difference between a server accelerator and an integrated mobile GPU.

The FP16 figures follow the same pattern. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 260.0 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Intel part delivers 3.584 TFLOPS with the same 2:1 ratio. Both parts list FP16 at twice their FP32 rate, but the absolute gap remains enormous.

Texture and pixel throughput tell a similar story. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU reaches 2,031.2 GTexel/s against 56.00 GTexel/s for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. Pixel rate is 54.41 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s. The texture rate gap is particularly large because the NVIDIA part has 896 texture mapping units versus 32 for the Intel part.

Memory bandwidth is another area of complete separation. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. No fixed bandwidth figure exists for the Intel part, so no ratio can be computed, but the NVIDIA part's 22.1 TB/s places it in a different class entirely.

Clock speeds show a more nuanced comparison. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1750 MHz. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost clock of 2267 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs higher at both ends, but the Intel part's lower base clock and higher relative boost ratio demonstrate the different design priorities of integrated mobile graphics versus server accelerators.

Power draw is not a benchmark, but it contextualizes the performance gap. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is rated at 65 W TDP. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is rated at 2300 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 2700 W. The NVIDIA part consumes roughly 35 times the power budget of the Intel part.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every specification field recorded in the database.

| Specification | Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile | NVIDIA Rubin GPU |

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

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 336,000 million |

| Die size | Not listed | 1456 mm² |

| Transistor density | Not listed | 230.8M / mm² |

| Base clock | 300 MHz | 700 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1750 MHz | 2267 MHz |

| Memory size | System Shared | 288 GB |

| Memory type | System Shared | HBM4 |

| Memory bus width | System Shared | 16384 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 22.1 TB/s |

| Shading units | 512 | 28,672 |

| TMUs | 32 | 896 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Tensor cores | Not listed | 896 |

| Pixel rate | 28.00 GPixel/s | 54.41 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 56.00 GTexel/s | 2,031.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.792 TFLOPS | 130.0 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1) | 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 65 W | 2300 W |

| Slot width | IGP | SXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 2700 W |

| Bus interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

The memory clocks also differ. The Intel part lists memory clock as system shared, while the NVIDIA part lists 2695 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective. Release dates are December 13, 2023 for the Intel part and December 31, 2025 for the NVIDIA part. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two products built for entirely different purposes. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is an integrated graphics processor for mobile devices. It uses system shared memory, has a Ring Bus interface, outputs to portable device displays, and carries a 65 W TDP. It supports standard graphics APIs including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server accelerator. It has 288 GB of dedicated HBM4 memory, a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, an SXM Module form factor, and a 2300 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 2700 W. It has no display outputs and lists N/A for conventional graphics APIs. Its 896 tensor cores and massive FP32 and FP16 throughput indicate a compute-focused design.

The specification gaps are so wide that no competitive overlap exists. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU leads in shading units by a factor of 56, in TMUs by a factor of 28, in FP32 by a factor of roughly 72, and in texture rate by a factor of roughly 36. The Intel part leads only in areas where the NVIDIA part is not applicable, such as display output support and graphics API compatibility.

The database shows no benchmark results for either part, and the nearest rivals lists are empty. The verdict therefore rests entirely on the recorded specifications. For mobile integrated graphics with display output and API support, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is the applicable product. For server compute with tensor core acceleration and enormous memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is the applicable product.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile wins in portability and integration. It is an IGP with a 65 W TDP, a Ring Bus interface, and portable device dependent display outputs. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for conventional graphics workloads on mobile platforms. Its predecessor is HD Graphics-M, and its release date of December 13, 2023 places it in the current mobile graphics landscape.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins in raw compute and memory capacity. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 outputs dwarf the Intel part's 1.792 TFLOPS and 3.584 TFLOPS. Its 288 GB HBM4 memory with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth provides a memory subsystem that the Intel part cannot match, since the Intel part relies on system dependent shared memory. The 896 tensor cores give the NVIDIA part a dedicated path for tensor operations that the Intel part does not list.

Clock speed comparisons favor the NVIDIA part at both base and boost. The NVIDIA part runs at 700 MHz base and 2267 MHz boost, while the Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 1750 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part also has a higher pixel rate at 54.41 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s and a vastly higher texture rate at 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s.

The data supports a clear division. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is the only one of the two with display outputs and graphics API support. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is the only one of the two with tensor cores, dedicated HBM4 memory, and server-oriented interfaces. Neither part can substitute for the other in its respective role. The recorded specifications show no benchmark overlap, no shared use case, and no direct competition between the two entries.