Intel Arc Graphics 64EU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE Comparison

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE occupy opposite ends of the GPU performance spectrum. The database records a single benchmark entry for the Intel part, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, while the NVIDIA part has no recorded benchmark scores. This lack of comparative data for the RTX 5090 SE, combined with the low percentile ranking of the Intel solution, defines the analytical landscape. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU sits at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, indicating that 97% of recorded graphics processors deliver a higher average score. The RTX 5090 SE sits at the 50th percentile, the median position, but this figure is based on its architectural classification rather than measured performance, as its average benchmark score is recorded as zero.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table between these two products is empty. Neither unit has a recorded direct comparison score against the other. The only measurable data point available is the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE has no benchmarks listed in the database, so no direct numerical comparison can be made from recorded measurements.

However, the Intel part does have comparative data against other rivals. The Arc Graphics 64EU matches its sibling parts, the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, with all three recording an identical average score of 733. The delta percentage between the 64EU and both of these parts is zero, indicating no measurable performance difference in the database. Against the AMD Radeon HD 6470M, the Intel part holds a 1.4% advantage, with the AMD unit scoring 723. Against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M, the Intel part trails by 2.4%, as the NVIDIA unit scores 751. These deltas are small, placing the 64EU within a narrow performance band that includes several older and lower-end mobile parts.

The absence of any recorded score for the RTX 5090 SE means the data cannot confirm the expected performance gap. The RTX 5090 SE is defined by its architectural specifications, such as 66.94 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 1.34 TB/s of memory bandwidth, but these are not benchmark results. The Intel part delivers 1.946 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. No measured test confirms how these specifications translate into real-world performance differences.

FAQ

Q: What is the only recorded benchmark score for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has a single recorded benchmark result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The RTX 5090 SE has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals listed.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU compare to the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU in average score?

A: Both parts record an identical average score of 733, with a delta percentage of 0.

Q: Which recorded rival performs better than the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which is 2.4% higher than the Intel part’s 733.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the RTX 5090 SE compared to the Arc Graphics 64EU?

A: The RTX 5090 SE is at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is at the 3rd percentile.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses 17,800 million transistors, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE uses 92,200 million transistors.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear imbalance. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has a measurable, albeit low, benchmark presence. Its 733 score places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include parts like the GeForce GT 415M, which beats it by 2.4%. The RTX 5090 SE has no measured performance data, so any direct performance assertion is unsupported by the database.

From the available information, the RTX 5090 SE is the higher-positioned product in the database hierarchy, sitting at the 50th percentile against the Intel part’s 3rd. Its architectural specifications, including 14,080 shading units and 110 ray tracing cores, vastly exceed the Intel part’s 512 shading units and lack of dedicated ray tracing cores. The RTX 5090 SE also carries a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD. The Intel part has no launch MSRP recorded.

A user selecting between these two based strictly on database percentile rankings would choose the NVIDIA part. The Intel part is positioned near the bottom of the performance distribution, while the NVIDIA part sits at the median. The lack of a measured score for the RTX 5090 SE prevents a numerical delta, but the percentile gap, 3 versus 50, indicates a substantial difference in expected performance class.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is built on a 3 nm process node, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE uses a 5 nm node. Both are fabricated by TSMC. The Intel chip, Arrow Lake-S, contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 73.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip, GB202, contains 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, with a density of 122.9 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1740 MHz and a boost clock of 2377 MHz. Memory configurations are entirely different. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA part uses 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 384 bit bus, delivering 1.34 TB/s of bandwidth.

Compute resources show a wide gap. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The NVIDIA part has 14,080 shading units, 440 texture mapping units, and 160 raster output units. The NVIDIA part also includes 110 ray tracing cores and 440 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists neither. Pixel rate for the Intel part is 30.40 GPixel/s versus 380.3 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Texture rate is 60.80 GTexel/s versus 1,045.9 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.946 TFLOPS versus 66.94 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 3.891 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio for Intel, versus 66.94 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio for NVIDIA.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Intel part has a TDP of 65 W and is an integrated graphics processor with a slot width of IGP. The NVIDIA part has a TDP of 500 W, is dual-slot, uses a 1x 16-pin power connector, and requires a suggested power supply of 900 W. The Intel part connects via Ring Bus, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for Intel, while NVIDIA provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The NVIDIA part has physical dimensions of 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Intel part has no recorded dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The architectural lineage separates these two products completely. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake) generation, and is integrated into the Arrow Lake-S chip. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the GeForce 50 series, built on the GB202 chip. The Intel part’s predecessor is listed as HD Graphics, while the NVIDIA part’s predecessor is GeForce 40. The NVIDIA part lists a successor, GeForce 60, while the Intel part lists none.

The process nodes differ, with Intel on a 3 nm TSMC node and NVIDIA on a 5 nm TSMC node. Transistor density favors the NVIDIA design at 122.9 million per square millimeter, compared to 73.3 million for Intel. The Intel part has no dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed, while the NVIDIA part includes 110 ray tracing cores and 440 tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

The Intel part’s memory architecture is system shared, meaning its bandwidth and capacity depend entirely on the host system. The NVIDIA part uses dedicated 24 GB of GDDR7 with a 384 bit bus and fixed 1.34 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part’s FP16 performance is identical to its FP32 performance at 66.94 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, indicating full-rate FP16. The Intel part halves its FP16 rate relative to FP32, delivering 3.891 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

The NVIDIA part is a discrete, dual-slot expansion card with its own power connector and a 900 W suggested power supply. The Intel part is an integrated processor with no power connector and a 65 W TDP. The NVIDIA part’s release date is recorded as 2025-12-31, while the Intel part’s release date is 2024-10-23. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU wins in any scenario that requires low power consumption. Its 65 W TDP is dramatically lower than the NVIDIA part’s 500 W TDP. It also requires no dedicated power connector and no separate power supply recommendation. As an integrated processor, it occupies no expansion slot and has no physical dimensions to accommodate. Its system shared memory model means no dedicated memory purchase is required.

The Intel part also wins on process node efficiency in one narrow sense: it uses a 3 nm process versus the NVIDIA part’s 5 nm process. This does not translate into a performance advantage in the recorded data, but it is a manufacturing difference. The Intel part’s nearest rivals, all scoring within 2.4% of its 733 result, indicate it competes in a performance class populated by older and lower-end parts.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE wins on every recorded performance-oriented metric. Its FP32 compute of 66.94 TFLOPS is more than 34 times the Intel part’s 1.946 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,045.9 GTexel/s is more than 17 times the Intel part’s 60.80 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 380.3 GPixel/s is more than 12 times the Intel part’s 30.40 GPixel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 1.34 TB/s is fixed and dedicated, while the Intel part’s bandwidth is system dependent.

The NVIDIA part includes hardware features the Intel part lacks entirely: 110 ray tracing cores and 440 tensor cores. These enable workloads that the Intel part cannot accelerate in the same way. The NVIDIA part has 24 GB of dedicated GDDR7 memory, while the Intel part shares system memory. The NVIDIA part supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface. The NVIDIA part provides fixed display outputs, while the Intel part’s outputs depend on the motherboard.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The Intel part’s 3rd percentile ranking places it among the lowest-performing GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA part’s 50th percentile ranking places it at the median. The RTX 5090 SE’s lack of recorded benchmarks means it cannot be compared numerically, but its classification and specifications place it in a different performance tier entirely. The database records no scenario where the Intel part outperforms the NVIDIA part, because no direct benchmark exists. The recorded data supports the NVIDIA part for high-performance workloads and the Intel part for low-power integrated use cases.