AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile occupy opposite ends of the graphics spectrum. The data shows a discrete add-in board designed for desktop systems facing off against an integrated processor graphics solution built for efficiency. While the head-to-head benchmark array is empty, the recorded technical specifications provide a definitive basis for comparison, indicating that these two components serve entirely different purposes and performance tiers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark records for this pairing, so the analysis relies on the peak theoretical throughput figures. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. This represents a 20.5x difference in raw shader throughput, a gap that defines their respective classes.

In texture processing, the AMD part achieves 123.2 GTexel/s compared to the Intel part’s 12.00 GTexel/s, a 10.3x advantage. Pixel fill rates show a similar pattern: the RX 7400 OEM outputs 70.40 GPixel/s versus the Intel 24EU’s 4.000 GPixel/s, an 17.6x difference. These figures indicate that the AMD solution can handle high-resolution rendering and complex shading workloads, while the Intel part is suited for basic display output and light 2D tasks.

The FP16 compute ratio also differs. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 7.885 TFLOPS. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile runs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 768.0 GFLOPS versus its 384.0 GFLOPS FP32. This means the Intel architecture can double its throughput on half-precision workloads, a feature often used in certain compute accelerations, though the absolute numbers remain far below the AMD part.

Memory bandwidth further separates the pair. The RX 7400 OEM has 172.8 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth across a 128-bit bus. The Intel 24EU relies on System Shared memory with bandwidth listed as System Dependent, meaning its performance scales with the host platform’s RAM speed. In any realistic configuration, the AMD discrete card’s dedicated memory bandwidth will vastly exceed what the Intel IGP can access.

The Verdict

The data clearly shows the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM is the superior graphics processor by every measurable metric. Its FP32 throughput, texture rate, pixel rate, and dedicated memory bandwidth place it in a completely different performance category. The percentileVsAllGpus field lists both at 50, but that figure appears to be a default placeholder given the absence of benchmark scores. The recorded specifications tell the real story.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is a 6 W IGP with 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Its performance envelope is designed for basic desktop compositing, video playback, and power-constrained mobile devices. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM, with 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, targets 1080p gaming and content creation workloads.

For a builder assembling a desktop PC with a discrete graphics card, the RX 7400 OEM is the clear choice. For a user purchasing a low-power laptop or compact mobile system where the processor integrates the graphics, the Intel 24EU is the only option. The data does not support any scenario where the Intel part outperforms the AMD part; it simply exists in a lower performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on the Navi 33 chip with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, containing 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the Intel part.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture, built on the Twin Lake chip. It belongs to the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation and is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The transistor count and die size are listed as unknown. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12_1 feature level is lower than the AMD part’s 12_2, which includes additional features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading.

The AMD architecture uses a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, meaning it does not accelerate half-precision workloads independently. The Intel architecture uses a 2:1 ratio, doubling FP16 throughput. This architectural choice reflects different design priorities: AMD focuses on gaming and general compute, while Intel’s Xe-LP targets efficiency and specific acceleration tasks.

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, a standard discrete card interface. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile connects via Ring Bus, a design used for integrated graphics within the processor package. This fundamental difference dictates their deployment: one is a standalone card, the other is built into the CPU die.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The AMD memory clock is 1350 MHz, 10.8 Gbps effective, while the Intel part uses System Shared memory with no dedicated clock.

Memory configuration differs completely. The RX 7400 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel 24EU has System Shared memory, System Shared type, System Shared bus width, and System Dependent bandwidth. This means the Intel part has no fixed memory performance; it depends on the host system’s RAM.

The shading units count is 1792 for AMD versus 192 for Intel. TMUs are 112 versus 12. ROPs are 64 versus 4. The AMD part has 28 ray tracing cores; the Intel part has none. The pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 7.885 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. FP16 is 7.885 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS.

Power consumption shows the core difference. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has a TDP of 55 W, a single-slot form factor, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W, an IGP form factor, no power connector, and no suggested PSU. The AMD card requires 167 mm of length, 6.6 inches, while the Intel part has no listed dimensions as it integrates into the processor package.

Display outputs differ. The AMD card offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The Intel part lists Portable Device Dependent outputs, meaning the display connectivity depends entirely on the laptop or mobile device design. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, the Intel part uses Ring Bus.

The release dates place the AMD part in 2025-08-07 and the Intel part in 2024-12-31. The AMD part has a predecessor listed as Navi II and successor as Navi IV. The Intel part lists no predecessor or successor. The production status for AMD is null, while Intel is Active.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. The AMD part is approximately 20.5x faster in FP32 compute.

Q: Does the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile support ray tracing?

A: No. The Intel part lists no ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM includes 28 ray tracing cores.

Q: What memory does the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile use?

A: It uses System Shared memory with System Shared type and bus width. Its bandwidth is System Dependent, meaning it relies on the host system’s RAM rather than dedicated graphics memory.

Q: How much power does each GPU require?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What is the difference in DirectX support?

A: The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The 12_2 feature level includes additional rendering technologies.

Q: Can the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile be installed in a desktop PC?

A: The data lists it as an IGP with a Ring Bus interface and Portable Device Dependent display outputs. It is designed for integration into a mobile processor, not as a discrete desktop card.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM wins in every scenario requiring dedicated graphics performance. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth supports modern gaming textures and high-resolution assets. The 28 ray tracing cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 throughput handles complex shaders and compute workloads. The 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate enables high refresh rate rendering. The 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate feeds detailed environments. The 55 W TDP is manageable for a desktop system with a 250 W suggested PSU, allowing for a compact single-slot card at 167 mm length. Its display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 support multiple high-resolution monitors.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins only in power efficiency and system integration. Its 6 W TDP is a fraction of the AMD part’s 55 W, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled mobile devices. Its IGP form factor requires no separate power connector, no additional slot space, and no dedicated memory purchase. The Ring Bus interface means zero additional board space. Its 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 throughput, while low in absolute terms, doubles its FP32 rate for half-precision compute tasks. The 4.000 GPixel/s pixel rate is sufficient for basic 2D desktop rendering and video output. The 12.00 GTexel/s texture rate handles simple UI elements and image compositing.

The use-case split is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM is for a desktop builder who needs a discrete card for gaming, 3D rendering, or GPU-accelerated applications. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is for a mobile device manufacturer or user who needs basic display output with minimal power draw and no upgrade path. The recorded data shows no overlap in their intended workloads. The AMD part’s dedicated memory, higher clocks, and larger compute unit count place it firmly in the performance tier. The Intel part’s shared memory, lower clocks, and minimal compute resources place it in the efficiency tier. Each wins in its own domain, but the performance gap between them is vast.