Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results. The database lists zero wins for either part, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. The average benchmark score for both entries is 0, with a percentile ranking of 50 for each against all GPUs. This absence of measured performance data means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural specifications and derived compute figures recorded in the database.

The most striking numerical contrast appears in raw compute throughput. The RTX 4090 Max-Q delivers 28.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile manages 384.0 GFLOPS. That difference works out to roughly 73.7 times more FP32 throughput for the NVIDIA part, a gap that dwarfs nearly every other specification comparison in the database. The texture rate tells a similar story: 442.3 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s, a factor of about 36.9. Pixel rate compares at 163.0 GPixel/s against 4.000 GPixel/s, a 40.75 times advantage.

Clock speeds show a less extreme but still decisive separation. The RTX 4090 Max-Q runs a base clock of 930 MHz and boosts to 1455 MHz. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile starts at 300 MHz and boosts to 1000 MHz. The NVIDIA part’s boost clock sits 45.5% higher, and its base clock is 3.1 times higher. Memory bandwidth amplifies the gap further: the RTX 4090 Max-Q has 576.0 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth on a 256 bit bus, while the Intel part uses System Shared memory with bandwidth recorded as System Dependent, meaning no fixed figure can be compared.

Shading units and other fixed-function hardware reinforce the pattern. The RTX 4090 Max-Q contains 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also includes 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores, both entirely absent from the Intel entry. The FP16 data shows the architectural philosophy: Intel runs 768.0 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA runs 28.31 TFLOPS at 1:1, so the NVIDIA part does not halve its throughput on half-precision workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in power efficiency by the numbers recorded. Its TDP is 6 W, compared to 80 W for the RTX 4090 Max-Q. That 74 W difference means the Intel part consumes only 7.5% of the power budget of the NVIDIA part. For thermally constrained portable devices where battery life and cooling capacity take priority over graphics throughput, the Intel part’s lower draw gives it a clear operational advantage.

The Intel part also wins on process node economics in terms of manufacturing simplicity, though not performance. Both parts use different foundries and nodes: Intel uses its own 10 nm process, while NVIDIA uses TSMC’s 5 nm process. The 10 nm node allows Intel to integrate the GPU directly as an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, requiring no power connectors and no dedicated memory. The RTX 4090 Max-Q requires a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and still lists no power connectors, but its 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die with a transistor density of 121.1M per mm² represents a far more complex manufacturing effort.

The RTX 4090 Max-Q wins in every measurable performance category. The FP32 gap of 28.31 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS means the NVIDIA part handles compute workloads at a scale the Intel part cannot approach. The 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores give the NVIDIA part dedicated hardware for ray-traced lighting and AI acceleration, features the Intel part lacks entirely. The 16 GB GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth supports large textures and high-resolution frame buffers, while the Intel part’s System Shared memory provides no fixed bandwidth figure and depends entirely on the host system.

For API support, the RTX 4090 Max-Q lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading. The Intel part lists DirectX 12 (12_1), a lower feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those API paths are equivalent in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture, built on Intel’s Twin Lake chip, part of the HD Graphics-T generation. The RTX 4090 Max-Q uses Ada Lovelace, built on the AD103 chip, part of the GeForce 40 Mobile series. The process nodes differ: Intel fabricates on 10 nm, while NVIDIA uses TSMC’s 5 nm process. The foundry difference means Intel controls its own manufacturing, while NVIDIA outsources to TSMC.

Core counts show the scale of the architectural divide. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. That translates to 50.7 times more shading units, 25.3 times more TMUs, and 28 times more ROPs. The NVIDIA part also adds 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores, neither of which exists in the Intel architecture.

Memory architecture differs completely. The Intel part uses System Shared memory with System Shared type, System Shared bus width, and System Dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock for the NVIDIA part is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The Intel part has no fixed memory clock beyond System Shared designation.

Transistor and die data exist only for the NVIDIA part. The database records 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The Intel part lists transistors and die size as unknown. The power delivery also differs: the Intel part runs at 6 W TDP, while the NVIDIA part runs at 80 W TDP. Both are listed with slot width as IGP, meaning neither uses a discrete expansion card form factor.

The bus interface differs as well. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs for both are listed as Portable Device Dependent, meaning neither has fixed display connectors in the database. The NVIDIA part lists a predecessor of GeForce 30 Mobile and a successor of GeForce 50 Mobile, while the Intel part has neither predecessor nor successor recorded. The RTX 4090 Max-Q released on 2023-01-02, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile released on 2024-12-31, a gap of roughly 23 months.

The Verdict

The database shows two products with no overlapping performance class. The RTX 4090 Max-Q delivers 28.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 442.3 GTexel/s texture fill, 163.0 GPixel/s pixel fill, and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS, 12.00 GTexel/s, 4.000 GPixel/s, and System Dependent bandwidth. Every aggregate performance metric favors the NVIDIA part by at least an order of magnitude, with FP32 showing a 73.7 times gap.

A buyer needing dedicated ray tracing hardware should select the RTX 4090 Max-Q, as it contains 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores, while the Intel part contains none. A workload involving DirectX 12 Ultimate features requires the NVIDIA part, since the Intel part only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Large memory footprints favor the NVIDIA part, which has 16 GB of GDDR6, whereas the Intel part shares system memory with no fixed capacity.

A system constrained to 6 W of GPU power has no choice but the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, as the RTX 4090 Max-Q requires 80 W TDP. The 10 nm process and Ring Bus interface of the Intel part suit low-power integrated designs. The RTX 4090 Max-Q, despite its mobile Max-Q designation, draws 74 W more and uses a 5 nm process with 45,900 million transistors, indicating a high-performance part for thicker laptops or workstations.

The release timing also matters. The Intel part released on 2024-12-31, while the NVIDIA part released on 2023-01-02. The NVIDIA part has a recorded successor, the GeForce 50 Mobile, while the Intel part has none. For users prioritizing current-generation features and performance, the RTX 4090 Max-Q remains the stronger option. For users prioritizing minimal power draw and integrated simplicity, the Intel part fits that role.

FAQ

Q: How much higher is the FP32 compute of the RTX 4090 Max-Q compared to the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q delivers 28.31 TFLOPS, while the Intel part delivers 384.0 GFLOPS, which is roughly 73.7 times higher.

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

A: No, the Intel part has no ray tracing cores recorded, while the RTX 4090 Max-Q has 76 RT cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two GPUs?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q has 576.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 256 bit GDDR6 bus with 16 GB capacity. The Intel part uses System Shared memory with bandwidth listed as System Dependent, so no fixed comparison is possible.

Q: Which GPU has a higher TDP?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q has a TDP of 80 W, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W, a difference of 74 W.

Q: What API levels does each GPU support?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q has 9728 shading units, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has 192, meaning the NVIDIA part has 50.7 times more.