Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA H100 CNX Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identities of the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile and the NVIDIA H100 CNX?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is an integrated GPU based on the Xe-LP architecture, part of the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The NVIDIA H100 CNX is a dedicated server accelerator based on the Hopper architecture (GH100 chip), fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process.

Q: How do the shading resources compare between the two?

A: The Intel part has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has 14,592 shading units, 456 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The H100 CNX also includes 456 tensor cores, while the Intel GPU has none listed.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses System Shared memory with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses 80 GB of HBM2e memory on a 5120-bit bus, delivering 2.04 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the clock speed range for each?

A: The Intel GPU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has a base clock of 690 MHz and a boost clock of 1845 MHz, with memory running at 1593 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).

Q: What API support does each provide?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has no listed DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, reflecting its server-oriented design with no display outputs.

Q: What are the physical and power characteristics?

A: The Intel GPU is an IGP with a 6 W TDP. The NVIDIA H100 CNX is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, with a 350 W TDP, an 8-pin EPS power connector, and a suggested PSU of 750 W.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a total split with zero benchmark wins for either side, but the specification sheet offers a clear division of strengths. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in integration and power efficiency. Its 6 W TDP versus 350 W for the H100 CNX represents a massive difference in thermal envelope, making it suitable for portable devices where power draw is constrained. The Intel part also has display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), whereas the H100 CNX has no outputs at all. For any workload requiring a framebuffer or display connection, the Intel GPU is the only functional option.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX wins decisively in raw compute and memory capacity. Its 53.84 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel part shows a 140x advantage in single-precision throughput. The H100 CNX also delivers 215.4 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (4:1 ratio), while the Intel GPU manages 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The 80 GB HBM2e memory with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the System Shared memory of the Intel IGP. Tensor cores, present only on the H100 CNX, give it a decisive edge in AI and deep learning inference workloads. The H100 CNX also has a much higher pixel rate (44.28 GPixel/s vs 4.000 GPixel/s) and texture rate (841.3 GTexel/s vs 12.00 GTexel/s).

For server deployments, the H100 CNX uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface versus the Ring Bus of the Intel part, enabling higher host bandwidth. The H100 CNX's 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die with a density of 98.3M per mm² indicates a far more complex compute engine. The production status for both is Active, meaning neither is discontinued.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture, Intel's low-power graphics design intended for integrated use. It is built on Intel's 10 nm process and belongs to the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation. The chip is called Twin Lake. This architecture prioritizes energy efficiency and basic rendering capabilities, with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support. The 192 shading units operate at a modest 1000 MHz boost clock, reflecting the thermal limits of an IGP.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses the Hopper architecture, NVIDIA's data center focused design. The GH100 chip is manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. This is a fundamentally different design philosophy: massive parallel compute with tensor core acceleration. The 456 tensor cores on the H100 CNX are absent from the Intel part. The H100 CNX has no display outputs and no consumer API support, confirming its role as a compute accelerator rather than a graphics card.

The memory architecture also diverges sharply. The Intel GPU uses System Shared memory, meaning it borrows from the host system's RAM with no dedicated VRAM. The H100 CNX uses 80 GB of HBM2e on a 5120-bit bus, a high-bandwidth memory stack designed for data center workloads. The bandwidth difference (2.04 TB/s vs System Dependent) is central to their different use cases.

The power delivery systems reflect their positioning. The Intel IGP draws 6 W and uses no external power connectors. The H100 CNX draws 350 W and requires an 8-pin EPS connector plus a 750 W suggested PSU. The H100 CNX is dual-slot with physical dimensions of 267 mm by 111 mm, while the Intel part has no listed dimensions, being an integrated component.

Specification Differences

The process nodes differ: Intel uses 10 nm while TSMC fabricates the H100 CNX at 5 nm. The Intel GPU has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The H100 CNX has 14,592 shading units, 456 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Tensor cores exist only on the H100 CNX at 456 count.

Clock speeds: Intel base is 300 MHz with a 1000 MHz boost. H100 CNX base is 690 MHz with a 1845 MHz boost. Memory clocks: Intel has no dedicated memory clock (System Shared), while the H100 CNX runs at 1593 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective.

Memory size and type: Intel uses System Shared, the H100 CNX uses 80 GB HBM2e. Bus width: System Shared versus 5120 bit. Bandwidth: System Dependent versus 2.04 TB/s.

Pixel rate: 4.000 GPixel/s for Intel, 44.28 GPixel/s for H100 CNX. Texture rate: 12.00 GTexel/s versus 841.3 GTexel/s. FP32: 384.0 GFLOPS versus 53.84 TFLOPS. FP16: 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) versus 215.4 TFLOPS (4:1). TDP: 6 W versus 350 W.

Slot width: IGP versus Dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus 8-pin EPS. Suggested PSU: none versus 750 W. Bus interface: Ring Bus versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus No outputs.

APIs: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H100 CNX has null entries for all three. Dimensions: Intel has none listed; the H100 CNX is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall.

Release dates differ: Intel launched on 2024-12-31, the H100 CNX on 2023-03-20. The H100 CNX lists a predecessor (Server Ada) and successor (Server Blackwell), while the Intel part has neither.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no benchmark scores for either GPU, with both showing an avgBenchmarkScore of 0 and zero head-to-head benchmark entries. The percentileVsAllGpus field is 50 for both, placing them at the median of the database's GPU distribution, though this is a positional metric rather than a performance measurement.

Without recorded benchmark data, the specification sheet provides the only quantitative basis for comparison. The FP32 difference is the most pronounced: 53.84 TFLOPS for the H100 CNX versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel part. This is a 140x gap in single-precision compute. The FP16 gap is even larger in absolute terms: 215.4 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS, a 280x difference, though the Intel part achieves its FP16 at a 2:1 ratio while the H100 CNX uses a 4:1 ratio.

Memory bandwidth shows a similar chasm. The H100 CNX delivers 2.04 TB/s from its HBM2e stack, while the Intel GPU's bandwidth is System Dependent, meaning it shares whatever memory bandwidth the host platform provides. The 5120-bit bus width versus System Shared underscores the H100 CNX's purpose as a bandwidth-hungry accelerator.

The pixel rate comparison (44.28 GPixel/s vs 4.000 GPixel/s) and texture rate (841.3 GTexel/s vs 12.00 GTexel/s) both favor the H100 CNX by roughly 11x and 70x respectively. These metrics matter for rendering workloads, though the H100 CNX has no display outputs, suggesting its rasterization capabilities serve compute or offscreen rendering only.

The Intel GPU's advantages are limited to power and integration. A 6 W TDP versus 350 W means the Intel part can operate in fanless portable devices, while the H100 CNX requires active cooling and server infrastructure. The release dates show the Intel part is newer (2024-12-31 vs 2023-03-20), but this does not translate to performance superiority in any recorded metric.

The Verdict

The data indicates two devices with essentially no overlap in purpose. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is an integrated graphics processor for portable systems. Its 6 W TDP, System Shared memory, and DisplayPort-dependent outputs position it as a basic display and light-compute solution. The 192 shading units and 1000 MHz boost clock provide adequate throughput for standard desktop tasks, and the DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support cover common graphics APIs.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX is a server accelerator for data center workloads. Its 53.84 TFLOPS FP32, 215.4 TFLOPS FP16, and 456 tensor cores target AI training, inference, and high-performance computing. The 80 GB HBM2e with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth supports large models and datasets. The absence of display outputs and consumer APIs confirms this is not a graphics card in the traditional sense.

For a portable device requiring display output and minimal power draw, the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is the appropriate choice. Its 6 W TDP fits within the thermal budget of thin-and-light laptops, and its IGP form factor requires no additional cooling or power delivery. The 2024-12-31 release date indicates current availability.

For server deployments requiring massive parallel compute, the H100 CNX is the only viable option between the two. The 350 W TDP and dual-slot form factor are acceptable in rack-mount environments. The 1845 MHz boost clock and 2.04 TB/s memory bandwidth deliver the throughput expected of a Hopper-generation accelerator. The 2023-03-20 release date places it in the previous server generation, with Server Blackwell listed as its successor.

The percentileVsAllGpus of 50 for both devices is a database positional metric, not a performance equivalence. Users selecting between these two should base their decision on workload type: display and light integration versus compute and memory capacity. The specification differences are so large that no benchmark is needed to identify the correct use case for each.