Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 Comparison

# Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 occupy entirely different performance strata, and the recorded data reflects a complete separation of use cases. The Intel part integrates into the Twin Lake platform as an IGP with 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 raster operation units. Its peak FP32 throughput is 384.0 GFLOPS, derived from a 300 MHz base clock and a 1000 MHz boost clock. The NVIDIA part, built on the AD103 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, delivers 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with FP32 compute reaching 29.15 TFLOPS at a 2475 MHz boost clock.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in scenarios where power draw and physical footprint dominate. Its TDP is 6 W, and it occupies an IGP slot, meaning no discrete power connectors are required. The RTX 4070 AD103 demands 200 W, uses a 1x 16-pin power connector, and recommends a 550 W PSU. For portable devices, the Intel IGP is the only feasible option, as its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," and its memory bandwidth is "System Dependent," sharing system RAM entirely.

The RTX 4070 AD103 wins in every compute and rendering metric recorded. Its pixel rate is 158.4 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s for the Intel IGP, a factor of roughly 39.6. Texture rate reaches 455.4 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s, a factor of about 37.9. FP16 performance on the NVIDIA part is 29.15 TFLOPS with 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Intel part delivers 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The RTX card also brings dedicated hardware: 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores. The Intel IGP has neither RT cores nor tensor cores listed.

Memory configuration further separates the two. The RTX 4070 AD103 uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, yielding 504.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel IGP uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent and no dedicated VRAM allocation. This means the NVIDIA card can sustain high-resolution texture streaming and large scene data, while the Intel part is limited by the host system's memory controller and capacity.

DirectX support differs in API level. The Intel IGP supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX 4070 AD103 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so legacy and cross-platform titles remain accessible on both, but the ray tracing and mesh shader features in DirectX 12 Ultimate are exclusive to the NVIDIA part.

The production statuses differ as well. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is listed as Active, while the RTX 4070 AD103 is End-of-life. The NVIDIA card has a predecessor (GeForce 30) and a successor (GeForce 50), while the Intel part has neither listed. This suggests the Intel IGP is a current integrated solution for new mobile platforms, whereas the RTX 4070 AD103 is a discrete card at the end of its lifecycle.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear verdict for each product's intended market. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is for systems where power consumption and integration are paramount. Its 6 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices, and its performance ceiling is appropriate for basic display output, 2D rendering, and light 3D workloads. The RTX 4070 AD103 is for users who need high-end rendering and compute, with 5888 shading units, 46 RT cores, and 184 tensor cores enabling modern game features and GPU-accelerated workflows.

Comparing FP32 compute, the RTX 4070 AD103 delivers 29.15 TFLOPS versus 0.384 TFLOPS for the Intel IGP, a difference of approximately 76x. Pixel throughput differs by roughly 40x, and texture throughput by roughly 38x. These are not incremental gaps but orders of magnitude that place the two products in different classes entirely.

The RTX 4070 AD103 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which reflects its discrete, high-performance positioning. The Intel IGP has no launch MSRP, consistent with its role as a bundled integrated solution.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision rests solely on the host platform. If the system is a portable device with a Twin Lake processor, the Intel IGP is the only option, and its 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs indicates mid-pack performance for integrated parts. If the system is a desktop with a PCIe 4.0 x16 slot, the RTX 4070 AD103 offers 12 GB GDDR6X, a 192-bit bus, and dual-slot cooling, with a 240 mm length, 110 mm height, and 40 mm width. The 550 W suggested PSU and 200 W TDP require a substantial power delivery system.

Benchmark results confirm that the RTX 4070 AD103 is the superior performer for any compute-intensive task, while the Intel IGP is the superior choice for low-power, space-constrained applications. No metric in the database shows the Intel part winning in raw performance. The Intel IGP wins only in power efficiency per watt, though the database does not provide an efficiency score, only the raw TDP figures.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is empty, so direct comparison must rely on the recorded specifications and derived rates. The pixel rate difference is stark: 158.4 GPixel/s for the RTX 4070 AD103 versus 4.000 GPixel/s for the Intel IGP. This means the NVIDIA card can fill the screen with rasterized pixels nearly 40 times faster, which translates to higher resolutions and frame rates in conventional rendering.

Texture rate tells a similar story. The RTX 4070 AD103 achieves 455.4 GTexel/s, while the Intel IGP manages 12.00 GTexel/s. Texture mapping is fundamental to modern game rendering, and a 38x advantage allows the NVIDIA card to use higher-resolution textures and more complex material shaders without bottlenecking.

FP32 compute is the most lopsided metric. The RTX 4070 AD103 delivers 29.15 TFLOPS, and the Intel IGP delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. This is a 76x gap. For general-purpose GPU compute, physics simulation, and AI inference, the NVIDIA card is in a different league. The tensor cores, 184 of them, accelerate matrix operations that the Intel IGP cannot perform without dedicated hardware.

FP16 data reveals different efficiency profiles. The RTX 4070 AD103 maintains 29.15 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning no throughput loss for half-precision workloads. The Intel IGP delivers 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 is twice the FP32 rate but still far below the NVIDIA part. The 1:1 ratio on the NVIDIA card indicates that its tensor cores handle FP16 efficiently, while the Intel IGP's 2:1 ratio is typical of consumer GPUs without dedicated tensor hardware.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive factor. The RTX 4070 AD103 has 504.2 GB/s from GDDR6X at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). The Intel IGP relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. In practice, shared memory bandwidth is limited by the memory controller and often far below dedicated VRAM, especially for integrated graphics in low-power mobile parts.

The shading unit count difference is substantial: 5888 versus 192, a ratio of 30.7x. Combined with the clock speed difference (2475 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz boost), the theoretical throughput gap widens further. The RTX 4070 AD103 also has 184 TMUs and 64 ROPs, versus 12 TMUs and 4 ROPs on the Intel IGP, reinforcing the same conclusion across every pipeline stage.

DirectX feature support separates the two in API capability. The RTX 4070 AD103 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing, variable rate shading, and mesh shaders. The Intel IGP supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which lacks those features. Games that require 12_2 features will not run on the Intel IGP, regardless of compute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 delivers 29.15 TFLOPS, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is approximately 76x faster in FP32.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has a TDP of 200 W. The NVIDIA card also requires a 1x 16-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the Intel IGP uses no power connectors.

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

A: No. The Intel part has no RT cores listed and supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has 46 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a longer production lifespan?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is listed as Active with no predecessor or successor. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 is listed as End-of-life, with predecessor GeForce 30 and successor GeForce 50.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die with a density of 121.1M / mm², fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has unknown transistor count and die size, fabricated by Intel on a 10 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses Xe-LP architecture on the Twin Lake chip, part of the HD Graphics-T generation. This is a low-power integrated architecture designed for mobile platforms, with a 10 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 uses Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD103 chip, part of the GeForce 40 series, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process.

The compute core configurations differ dramatically. Intel uses 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. NVIDIA uses 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also includes 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores, neither of which the Intel part has. These dedicated units enable hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration, features absent from the Intel IGP.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Intel IGP runs at 300 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost, reflecting its low-power design. The NVIDIA card runs at 1920 MHz base and 2475 MHz boost, a much higher operating point enabled by its 200 W power budget. The memory clocks also differ: the Intel part uses system shared memory with no dedicated clock, while the NVIDIA card runs GDDR6X at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Intel IGP has no dedicated VRAM, using system shared memory for both capacity and bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, delivering 504.2 GB/s. This dedicated memory eliminates contention with the CPU and provides predictable bandwidth for GPU workloads.

The bus interface reflects their positioning. The Intel IGP connects via Ring Bus, integrated into the processor package. The NVIDIA card uses PCIe 4.0 x16, a high-bandwidth external interface for discrete cards. This makes the NVIDIA card compatible with desktop systems that have a PCIe slot, while the Intel IGP is fixed to the motherboard.

Process technology separates them further. Intel uses its own 10 nm node, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm node. The NVIDIA chip packs 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, achieving a density of 121.1M / mm². Intel's transistor count and die size are unknown, but the 10 nm node and integrated design suggest a much smaller chip.

Display outputs differ in flexibility. The Intel IGP's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop design. The NVIDIA card offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, providing standard desktop connectivity. The NVIDIA card also has a dual-slot form factor with dimensions of 240 mm length, 110 mm height, and 40 mm width.

API support shows a generation gap. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but DirectX support differs: Intel reaches 12 (12_1), while NVIDIA reaches 12 Ultimate (12_2). The 12_2 feature set includes ray tracing, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading, which are hardware-dependent features the Intel IGP cannot provide.

Power delivery further separates the two. The Intel IGP uses 6 W and has no power connectors, drawing power from the motherboard. The NVIDIA card uses 200 W, requires a 1x 16-pin power connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The NVIDIA card is also End-of-life, while the Intel IGP is Active, indicating different stages in their product lifecycles.