Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile and NVIDIA B200 SXM6 occupy completely different tiers of the GPU spectrum, with the former designed for low-power integrated graphics in portable devices and the latter engineered as a server-class accelerator. The database shows a 50th percentile ranking for both parts among all GPUs, but that percentile reflects different pools of benchmark data, as neither has recorded average benchmark scores. The head-to-head benchmark comparison yields zero wins for each side, meaning no direct performance measurements exist to compare them numerically. Instead, the analysis must rely on architectural specifications and recorded data fields to establish where each part stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No recorded benchmark scores exist for either product in the database. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has an average benchmark score of 0, and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 also has an average benchmark score of 0. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counters show zero for both parts. This absence of direct measurement data means the comparative analysis cannot rely on synthetic or real-world test results. Instead, the raw compute specifications provide the only quantitative basis for comparison.

The FP32 floating-point performance gap is enormous. The Intel part delivers 384.0 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS. Converting the latter to GFLOPS (69,340 GFLOPS) shows the NVIDIA accelerator is roughly 180 times faster in FP32, though the exact ratio is not recorded in the database. The FP16 figures tell a similar story: Intel reaches 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA delivers 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The texture rate difference is equally stark, with Intel at 12.00 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA at 1,083.4 GTexel/s. Pixel rates show 4.000 GPixel/s for Intel and 43.92 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, a difference of approximately 11 times.

Memory bandwidth separates the two even further. Intel uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, offering no fixed figure. NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for NVIDIA is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while Intel's memory clock is also listed as system shared. These recorded data points confirm that the NVIDIA part operates in a performance class that the Intel integrated graphics cannot approach, but without benchmark scores, the database cannot quantify the real-world impact beyond these specification-level comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The process nodes differ by a full generation. Intel uses a 10 nm process fabricated at its own foundry, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The transistor counts reflect this gap: Intel's transistor count is listed as unknown, while NVIDIA's GB100 chip packs 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². Intel's die size is also unknown, so no direct density comparison is possible.

The architectures themselves target different workloads. Intel uses Xe-LP architecture from the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation, while NVIDIA uses Blackwell architecture from the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. Intel's chip is called Twin Lake, NVIDIA's is GB100. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 raster output pipelines. NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. NVIDIA also includes 592 tensor cores, while Intel lists no tensor cores at all. Neither part lists ray tracing cores.

Clock behavior differs significantly. Intel runs at a base clock of 300 MHz with a boost to 1000 MHz. NVIDIA has a much lower base of 120 MHz but boosts to 1830 MHz. The memory configuration for Intel is entirely system shared, whereas NVIDIA uses dedicated HBM3e with a 2000 MHz memory clock. The bus interface also separates them: Intel uses a Ring Bus, NVIDIA uses PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent for Intel, while NVIDIA has no outputs at all.

The API support is another distinguishing factor. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating the server accelerator does not expose these consumer graphics APIs. This reflects the intended use case: Intel powers graphics on mobile devices, NVIDIA accelerates compute workloads in data centers.

Power and physical specifications reinforce the divide. Intel has a TDP of 6 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width or power connectors. NVIDIA has a TDP of 1000 W, uses an SXM Module slot, and requires a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The production status for both is listed as active, with release dates in late 2024: Intel on December 31, 2024, and NVIDIA on October 31, 2024.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 18,944 shading units, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has 192 shading units.

Q: What is the memory capacity of each GPU?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory with no fixed size, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e memory.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: No. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 boosts to 1830 MHz, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile boosts to 1000 MHz. The Intel part has a higher base clock at 300 MHz versus 120 MHz for NVIDIA.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W.

Q: Which GPU uses tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 includes 592 tensor cores. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile does not list any tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows differences in nearly every specification category. Process node: Intel is 10 nm, NVIDIA is 5 nm. Foundry: Intel uses its own, NVIDIA uses TSMC. Transistors: Intel is unknown, NVIDIA is 208,000 million. Die size: Intel is unknown, NVIDIA is 1628 mm². Transistor density: Intel is not listed, NVIDIA is 127.8M per mm².

Clocks: Intel base is 300 MHz, NVIDIA base is 120 MHz. Intel boost is 1000 MHz, NVIDIA boost is 1830 MHz. Memory clock: Intel is system shared, NVIDIA is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective. Memory size: Intel is system shared, NVIDIA is 180 GB. Memory type: Intel is system shared, NVIDIA is HBM3e. Memory bus width: Intel is system shared, NVIDIA is 8192 bit. Memory bandwidth: Intel is system dependent, NVIDIA is 8.19 TB/s.

Compute units: Intel has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. NVIDIA has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Tensor cores: Intel lists none, NVIDIA lists 592. Pixel rate: Intel is 4.000 GPixel/s, NVIDIA is 43.92 GPixel/s. Texture rate: Intel is 12.00 GTexel/s, NVIDIA is 1,083.4 GTexel/s. FP32: Intel is 384.0 GFLOPS, NVIDIA is 69.34 TFLOPS. FP16: Intel is 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1), NVIDIA is 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and form factor: TDP is 6 W for Intel and 1000 W for NVIDIA. Slot width is IGP for Intel and SXM Module for NVIDIA. Power connectors: Intel lists none, NVIDIA lists none. Suggested PSU: Intel lists none, NVIDIA lists 1400 W. Bus interface: Intel uses Ring Bus, NVIDIA uses PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs: Intel is portable device dependent, NVIDIA has no outputs.

APIs: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all. Release dates: Intel is December 31, 2024, NVIDIA is October 31, 2024. Predecessor and successor: Intel lists neither, NVIDIA lists Server Hopper as predecessor and Server Rubin as successor. Launch MSRP: Intel has none, NVIDIA is 34,999 USD.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded specifications, the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in scenarios requiring minimal power consumption. Its 6 W TDP allows integration into portable devices where power budgets are extremely tight. The base clock advantage, 300 MHz versus 120 MHz, suggests it can sustain higher idle or low-load frequencies without needing the massive power delivery infrastructure that NVIDIA requires. The API support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 makes it suitable for consumer graphics workloads on mobile platforms. The display outputs, described as portable device dependent, indicate it can drive integrated displays.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins in every compute-heavy category. The 180 GB HBM3e memory with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth provides massive data throughput for large models and datasets. The 69.34 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance, with a 1:1 ratio for FP16, supports both single-precision and half-precision workloads at similar speeds. The 592 tensor cores enable accelerated matrix operations. The 1,083.4 GTexel/s texture rate and 43.92 GPixel/s pixel rate far exceed the Intel part. The PCIe 6.0 x16 interface allows high-speed host communication. The 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU confirm it is designed for dedicated server installations with ample cooling and power.

Neither part shows a recorded benchmark win, so the use-case split derives entirely from the specification data. Intel serves integrated graphics roles in mobile devices, NVIDIA serves server acceleration roles in data centers.

The Verdict

The data indicates these GPUs should never be compared as alternatives. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is an integrated part with 192 shading units, a 6 W TDP, and system shared memory, built for portable devices using the Xe-LP architecture on a 10 nm process. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is a server module with 18,944 shading units, 592 tensor cores, 180 GB of HBM3e memory, and a 1000 W TDP, built for compute acceleration using the Blackwell architecture on a 5 nm process.

The performance gap is absolute. NVIDIA delivers 69.34 TFLOPS FP32 versus Intel's 384.0 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly two orders of magnitude. The memory bandwidth difference, 8.19 TB/s versus system dependent, removes any possibility of comparable throughput. The API support difference, with NVIDIA listing N/A for all consumer graphics APIs, confirms that NVIDIA does not target graphics rendering in the traditional sense.

For a mobile device needing integrated graphics with 6 W power consumption and DirectX 12 support, the Intel part is the only viable option in this pairing. For a server workload requiring 180 GB of memory, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and tensor core acceleration, the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is the clear choice. The launch MSRP of 34,999 USD for the NVIDIA part places it in a class where the Intel IGP has no pricing data, further separating their intended markets. The database records no benchmark scores for either, so the verdict rests on architectural specifications: one is a low-power integrated graphics solution, the other is a high-performance server accelerator.