Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile Comparison

Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile occupy opposite ends of the mobile graphics spectrum, yet both target portable devices. The Intel part, built on the Twin Lake chip with Xe-LP architecture, serves as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for basic display output and light acceleration. The NVIDIA part, a discrete-class IGP in the GeForce 50-series, uses the GB206 chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture and delivers substantially higher compute throughput. The database records zero head-to-head benchmark entries between them, and the Intel part has no benchmark scores at all, while the NVIDIA part carries nine recorded tests. The comparison therefore relies on architectural specifications, raw throughput numbers, and the NVIDIA part’s measured performance against its nearest rivals.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in scenarios where power draw and system simplicity are paramount. Its TDP is 6 W, compared to the NVIDIA part’s 50 W, meaning the Intel solution places far less strain on a laptop’s thermal and power delivery systems. The Intel part uses system-shared memory, which eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM modules and reduces manufacturing complexity. For basic tasks like desktop compositing, video playback, and legacy DirectX 9 or OpenGL workloads, the Intel part’s 192 shading units and 4 ROPs are sufficient. Its pixel rate of 4.000 GPixel/s and texture rate of 12.00 GTexel/s, while modest, handle standard 2D interfaces and low-resolution 3D scenes without external power connectors or a dedicated memory bus.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile wins in every performance-heavy category. Its 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs provide 24 times, 12 times, and 12 times the corresponding Intel resources, respectively. The NVIDIA part’s FP32 throughput of 13.13 TFLOPS dwarfs the Intel part’s 384.0 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 34 times. In memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA part’s 384.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR7 bus contrasts with the Intel part’s system-dependent bandwidth, which has no fixed figure in the database. The NVIDIA part also includes 36 RT cores and 144 tensor cores, features absent from the Intel part. These enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads, which the Intel part cannot accelerate through dedicated units. The NVIDIA part’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Intel part’s DirectX 12 (12_1) indicates a higher feature level for modern graphics APIs.

The use-case split is clear. The Intel part suits ultra-low-power notebooks where battery life and cool operation matter more than graphical capability. The NVIDIA part suits gaming laptops and creator systems where frame rates, ray tracing, and compute-intensive tasks dominate. The database shows the NVIDIA part at the 75th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, indicating no recorded performance data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share almost nothing architecturally beyond the IGP form factor. The Intel part uses the Twin Lake chip, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel’s foundry. The NVIDIA part uses the GB206 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference alone explains a significant portion of the performance gap, as the smaller node allows more transistors in the same area. The NVIDIA chip contains 21,900 million transistors on a 181 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.0M per mm². The Intel part’s transistor count and die size are unknown in the database.

The Intel part’s Xe-LP architecture targets low power with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. Its memory interface is system-shared, meaning the GPU reads and writes to the same memory pool as the CPU, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The NVIDIA part’s Blackwell 2.0 architecture runs at a base clock of 907 MHz and a boost clock of 1425 MHz, with dedicated 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA memory clock is 1500 MHz with 24 Gbps effective data rate, producing 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory arrangement avoids contention with CPU processes and provides predictable, high-speed access.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The NVIDIA part adds 36 RT cores and 144 tensor cores; the Intel part has none. The FP32 performance is 384.0 GFLOPS for Intel versus 13.13 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 performance is 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio) for Intel versus 13.13 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) for NVIDIA, meaning the NVIDIA part maintains full rate at half precision while the Intel part halves its throughput. Pixel rate is 4.000 GPixel/s versus 68.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 12.00 GTexel/s versus 205.2 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part’s bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus, reflecting its integration into the CPU package.

API support shows a generational gap. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA part’s higher DirectX feature level enables advanced rendering techniques like mesh shaders and variable-rate shading, which the Intel part lacks. The NVIDIA part also lists power connectors as none, consistent with an IGP that draws power from the motherboard rather than auxiliary cables.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile. The Intel part has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals listed. The NVIDIA part, however, has nine recorded benchmark scores that establish its performance class.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA part scores 122238. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 116960. These are the highest recorded scores for the NVIDIA part, indicating strong compute and graphics API performance. The PassMark suite shows a different pattern. DirectX 10 scores 129, DirectX 11 scores 192, DirectX 12 scores 93, and DirectX 9 scores 214. The DirectX 9 score is the highest among the PassMark DirectX tests, while DirectX 12 is the lowest. This suggests the NVIDIA part’s performance scales unevenly across API generations, possibly reflecting driver optimization priorities. The PassMark G2D score of 896 indicates 2D graphics capability, while the G3D score of 20355 reflects comprehensive 3D rendering performance. The PassMark GPU compute score of 8279 measures non-graphics compute workloads.

The NVIDIA part’s average benchmark score across all tests is 29928. Its percentile among all GPUs is 75, placing it above the median. The nearest rivals in the database are all desktop or high-end mobile parts. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti has an average score of 29945, which is 0.1% higher than the RTX 5070 Mobile’s score. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti scores 29783, which is 0.5% lower. The AMD Radeon RX 6800 scores 30095, which is 0.6% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 scores 30433, which is 1.7% higher. These deltas indicate the RTX 5070 Mobile performs within a narrow band of these established parts, with the RX 6700 being the furthest ahead at 1.7%.

Because the Intel part has no benchmark scores, the head-to-head comparison is one-sided. Every recorded measurement belongs to the NVIDIA part, and the Intel part’s performance can only be inferred from its theoretical throughput figures. The 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 rate and 4.000 GPixel/s pixel rate suggest a part designed for minimal graphics load, not competitive gaming. The NVIDIA part’s 13.13 TFLOPS FP32 rate is 34 times higher, and its 68.40 GPixel/s pixel rate is 17 times higher. The texture rate gap is even larger, with 205.2 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s, a 17 times difference. These ratios, derived from the database’s fixed numbers, quantify the performance chasm without needing direct benchmark comparisons.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference in FP32 compute between the two parts?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile delivers 13.13 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is approximately 34 times faster in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: Which part supports ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile includes RT cores, with 36 of them. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has no RT cores listed in the database, so it lacks dedicated ray tracing acceleration.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The NVIDIA part has 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, meaning no fixed bandwidth figure exists in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each part?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile has a TDP of 50 W. Both are listed as IGP slot width and neither uses external power connectors.

Q: How does the NVIDIA part compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 5070 Mobile’s average benchmark score is 29928. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti scores 0.1% higher, the RTX 2080 Ti scores 0.5% lower, the AMD Radeon RX 6800 scores 0.6% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 scores 1.7% higher.

Q: What DirectX versions do the two parts support?

A: The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two parts differ, based on the database records.

| Field | Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Manufacturer | Intel | NVIDIA |

| Chip | Twin Lake | GB206 |

| Architecture | Xe-LP | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Generation | HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) | GeForce 50 Mobile |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | unknown | 21,900 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 181 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 121.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 907 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | 1425 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1500 MHz 24 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 384.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 12 | 144 |

| ROPs | 4 | 48 |

| RT Cores | null | 36 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 144 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.000 GPixel/s | 68.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 12.00 GTexel/s | 205.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 384.0 GFLOPS | 13.13 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) | 13.13 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 6 W | 50 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2024-12-31T17:00:00.000Z | 2025-04-14T17:00:00.000Z |

| Predecessor | null | GeForce 40 Mobile |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 75 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 29928 |

The table shows 30 differing fields. The most consequential differences are process node (10 nm versus 5 nm), memory configuration (shared versus 8 GB GDDR7), compute resources (192 versus 4608 shading units), and feature set (no RT or tensor cores versus 36 RT and 144 tensor cores). The NVIDIA part’s release date is later by roughly three and a half months, and it explicitly lists a predecessor, the GeForce 40 Mobile, while the Intel part has no predecessor recorded.

The transistor count difference is stark: 21,900 million for NVIDIA versus unknown for Intel. The die size of 181 mm² for NVIDIA versus unknown for Intel further highlights the scale gap. The NVIDIA part’s transistor density of 121.0M per mm² indicates a dense design on the smaller process node. The Intel part’s Ring Bus interface reflects its integration into a system-on-chip layout, while the NVIDIA part uses a standard PCIe 5.0 x16 connection. Both parts list display outputs as portable device dependent, meaning the actual ports depend on the laptop implementation.

The benchmark data confirms the NVIDIA part’s position. Its PassMark G3D score of 20355 and GPU compute score of 8279 are significant for mobile parts. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 122238 and Vulkan score of 116960 show strong cross-API performance. The Intel part’s zero benchmark scores and empty rivals list mean it has no measured standing in the database beyond its theoretical specifications. The percentile gap, 50 versus 75, places the Intel part at the median and the NVIDIA part in the upper quartile of all GPUs.