Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA B300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark comparisons between the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile and the NVIDIA B300. Both entries carry an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database, with no nearest rivals listed and no head-to-head benchmark results available. This absence of measured performance data means the comparison must rely entirely on architectural specifications and theoretical throughput figures.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers a peak FP32 performance of 384.0 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA B300 reaches 76.99 TFLOPS. That represents a difference of roughly 200 times in raw single-precision compute, a gap that underscores the fundamental positioning of these two products. The B300's texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part, and pixel rates of 48.77 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s, reinforce the same conclusion: these are not competing in the same performance class.

The B300 also carries 144 GB of HBM3e memory with a 4096-bit bus and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, making its bandwidth entirely system dependent. In any workload that stresses memory capacity or bandwidth, the B300's dedicated HBM3e subsystem provides a decisive advantage that the Intel part cannot match.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is built on the Xe-LP architecture, using a chip codenamed Twin Lake and belonging to the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The B300 uses the Blackwell Ultra architecture with a GB110 chip, part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference alone indicates a significant generational and manufacturing capability gap.

Transistor counts differ dramatically. The B300 integrates 104,000 million transistors, while the Intel part's transistor count is listed as unknown. Die size for the B300 is not recorded, and the Intel die size is also unknown, so no direct comparison is possible on that metric.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The B300 also includes 592 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists no tensor cores at all. Neither product lists dedicated ray tracing cores.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile runs at a 300 MHz base clock with a 1000 MHz boost. The B300 operates at 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost. Memory clocks are not directly comparable: the Intel part uses system shared memory, while the B300 runs HBM3e at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate.

The API support profiles are distinct. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B300 lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database, consistent with its server-oriented design that focuses on compute rather than graphics rendering.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is positioned for integrated graphics duty in portable devices. Its 6 W TDP makes it suitable for low-power mobile platforms where energy consumption is a primary constraint. The ring bus interface and system shared memory reflect a design that prioritizes simplicity and integration over raw throughput. Its API support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can handle conventional graphics workloads on portable devices.

The NVIDIA B300 is a server-class accelerator in an SXM Module form factor with a 1400 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1800 W. It has no display outputs, confirming that it is not intended for rendering to a screen. Its 592 tensor cores and massive FP16 throughput of 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1) indicate a focus on AI training and inference, high-performance computing, and scientific simulation workloads. The 144 GB HBM3e memory capacity and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth serve large models and datasets that would never fit in the Intel part's system shared memory.

The data shows no scenario where the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins on compute performance, memory bandwidth, or capacity. Its advantages are limited to power draw and integration simplicity. For a portable device needing basic graphics output, the Intel part suffices. For any workload involving large-scale parallel computation, the B300 is the only viable option between these two.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two products:

• Manufacturer: Intel versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Twin Lake versus GB110
• Architecture: Xe-LP versus Blackwell Ultra
• Generation: HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) versus Server Blackwell (Bxx)
• Process node: 10 nm versus 5 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: unknown versus 104,000 million
• Base clock: 300 MHz versus 1665 MHz
• Boost clock: 1000 MHz versus 2032 MHz
• Memory size: System Shared versus 144 GB
• Memory type: System Shared versus HBM3e
• Memory bus width: System Shared versus 4096 bit
• Memory bandwidth: System Dependent versus 4.10 TB/s
• Shading units: 192 versus 18,944
• TMUs: 12 versus 592
• ROPs: 4 versus 24
• Tensor cores: none versus 592
• Pixel rate: 4.000 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 12.00 GTexel/s versus 1,202.9 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 384.0 GFLOPS versus 76.99 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) versus 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1)
• TDP: 6 W versus 1400 W
• Slot width: IGP versus SXM Module
• Suggested PSU: none versus 1800 W
• Bus interface: Ring Bus versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus No outputs
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus none listed
• OpenGL support: 4.6 versus none listed
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus none listed
• Release date: 2024-12-31 versus 2025-09-10
• Predecessor: none versus Server Hopper
• Successor: none versus Server Rubin

Both products are listed as Active in production status. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile provides 384.0 GFLOPS. The B300 is roughly 200 times faster in single-precision compute.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA B300 lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database.

Q: Which GPU uses more power?

A: The NVIDIA B300 has a 1400 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a 6 W TDP.

Q: Are tensor cores present in both products?

A: The NVIDIA B300 includes 592 tensor cores. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile lists no tensor cores.

Q: What form factors do these GPUs use?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a ring bus interface. The NVIDIA B300 is an SXM Module using PCIe 5.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data indicates these two products serve entirely different markets with no meaningful overlap. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, with its 6 W TDP, 384.0 GFLOPS FP32, and system shared memory, is designed for basic graphics output in low-power mobile devices. Its API support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 allows it to handle standard rendering tasks in portable environments.

The NVIDIA B300 is a server accelerator built for maximum compute throughput. Its 76.99 TFLOPS FP32, 1,231.8 TFLOPS FP16, 144 GB HBM3e memory, and 592 tensor cores place it in a category for AI training, high-performance computing, and data center workloads. The absence of display outputs confirms it is not meant for graphics presentation. Its 1400 W TDP and SXM Module form factor require dedicated server infrastructure.

For a user selecting between these two, the choice is dictated by the workload. Portable devices requiring integrated graphics should use the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. Server deployments needing massive parallel compute and memory capacity should use the NVIDIA B300. The benchmark database contains no direct comparison results, but the specification gap is so large that no workload could plausibly favor the Intel part on performance grounds. The only criteria where the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile holds an advantage are power consumption and integration simplicity.