Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark scores for either the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile or the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and an empty head-to-head benchmark list. Consequently, there are no numerical wins to report for either side in direct comparison. The absence of measured results means the database cannot assign a performance delta between these two parts.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, which indicates that their aggregate standing is identical when no benchmark data is present. The Intel part delivers a theoretical FP32 throughput of 384.0 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part reaches 15.82 TFLOPS in FP32. Those raw figures, taken from the specification fields, show a large gap, but they are not benchmark outcomes. The pixel rate for Intel is 4.000 GPixel/s versus 98.88 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate stands at 12.00 GTexel/s for Intel and 247.2 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. These are computed specification limits, not measured application performance.

Since the head-to-head benchmark array is empty, the wins counter for each product remains at zero. The data simply does not support any claim of superiority in tested workloads. The only quantifiable comparison comes from the specification sheet, which lists the NVIDIA part with 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, against Intel’s 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The NVIDIA GPU also includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists none for either feature.

The memory subsystem differs substantially. NVIDIA uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The clock behavior also diverges: Intel runs at a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 1000 MHz, while NVIDIA starts at 1110 MHz and boosts to 1545 MHz. Memory clock for NVIDIA is listed as 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. Intel’s memory clock is system shared.

Without benchmark results, the database cannot confirm how these specification differences translate into real-world frame rates or compute times. The recorded data offers only theoretical peak rates and architectural details. Any statement about relative performance must remain limited to those fields.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data does not contain any benchmark wins for either product. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero. Therefore, no workload category can be assigned to either GPU based on measured results. The specification fields, however, indicate distinct design targets.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses a 6 W TDP and an IGP slot width. That power envelope suggests it is intended for low-power, portable devices where thermal headroom is minimal. Its shading unit count of 192 and FP32 output of 384.0 GFLOPS place it in a class suited to basic display output and light 2D workloads. The texture rate of 12.00 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 4.000 GPixel/s align with simple rendering tasks.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation draws 100 W and also uses an IGP slot width, but its specification profile points to a different usage envelope. With 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, it can handle geometry-heavy and fill-rate-intensive scenes. The presence of 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores adds hardware support for ray tracing and AI acceleration. The memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s allows large data movement, which matters for high-resolution textures and compute workloads.

The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 12_2 feature level includes additional ray tracing and mesh shader capabilities, which the Intel part does not list. The API list alone does not guarantee performance, but it does define which features each GPU can expose to software.

The process node differs: Intel uses 10 nm, while NVIDIA uses 5 nm from TSMC. The NVIDIA chip, AD104, contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8M / mm². Intel’s transistor count and die size are listed as unknown. The Twin Lake chip uses Xe-LP architecture, while the NVIDIA part uses Ada Lovelace.

The release dates show a sequence: NVIDIA launched on 2023-03-20, and Intel followed on 2024-12-31. NVIDIA lists its predecessor as Ampere-MW and successor as Blackwell-MW. Intel lists no predecessor or successor. These timeline details do not determine winners, but they establish that the two parts come from different design generations.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture, built on the Twin Lake chip. The manufacturing process is 10 nm at Intel’s foundry. The generation is labeled HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake). No dedicated RT cores or tensor cores are present. The shading units number 192, with 12 TMUs and 4 ROPs. The bus interface is Ring Bus.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on the AD104 chip. The process node is 5 nm at TSMC. The generation is Ada-MW. The chip contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a transistor density of 121.8M / mm². It includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16.

The memory architecture is a key separation. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. NVIDIA uses dedicated 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock for NVIDIA is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. Intel’s memory clock field is listed as system shared.

The FP16 path differs. Intel lists FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. NVIDIA lists FP16 at 15.82 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. That means NVIDIA’s FP16 throughput matches its FP32 throughput, while Intel’s FP16 is double its FP32 rate. The 1:1 ratio on NVIDIA suggests hardware designed for compute workloads that do not rely on reduced-precision acceleration.

The power delivery also separates the two. Intel’s TDP is 6 W, while NVIDIA’s is 100 W. Both use an IGP slot width, and NVIDIA uses no power connectors. The display outputs for both are listed as portable device dependent. The API support overlaps on OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but NVIDIA adds DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while Intel stops at DirectX 12 (12_1).

The production status for both is Active. The release date for NVIDIA is 2023-03-20, and for Intel it is 2024-12-31. The transistor density for Intel is not listed, while NVIDIA’s is 121.8M / mm². The die size for Intel is unknown, while NVIDIA’s is 294 mm².

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The shading unit count is 192 for Intel versus 5120 for NVIDIA. TMUs are 12 versus 160. ROPs are 4 versus 64. The base clock is 300 MHz versus 1110 MHz. The boost clock is 1000 MHz versus 1545 MHz.

The memory size is system shared for Intel and 12 GB for NVIDIA. The memory type is system shared for Intel and GDDR6 for NVIDIA. The bus width is system shared for Intel and 192 bit for NVIDIA. The bandwidth is system dependent for Intel and 432.0 GB/s for NVIDIA.

The pixel rate is 4.000 GPixel/s for Intel and 98.88 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. The texture rate is 12.00 GTexel/s for Intel and 247.2 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 384.0 GFLOPS for Intel and 15.82 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 768.0 GFLOPS for Intel and 15.82 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

The TDP is 6 W for Intel and 100 W for NVIDIA. The bus interface is Ring Bus for Intel and PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA. The process node is 10 nm for Intel and 5 nm for NVIDIA. The foundry is Intel for the first part and TSMC for the second.

The transistor count is unknown for Intel and 35,800 million for NVIDIA. The die size is unknown for Intel and 294 mm² for NVIDIA. The transistor density is not listed for Intel and is 121.8M / mm² for NVIDIA. The RT core count is not listed for Intel and is 40 for NVIDIA. The tensor core count is not listed for Intel and is 160 for NVIDIA.

The DirectX version is 12 (12_1) for Intel and 12 Ultimate (12_2) for NVIDIA. OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Vulkan is 1.4 for both. The power connector field is null for Intel and none for NVIDIA. The suggested PSU is null for both. The dimensions are null for both.

The series field is null for Intel and GeForce 30-series for NVIDIA. The generation is HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) for Intel and Ada-MW for NVIDIA. The release date is 2024-12-31 for Intel and 2023-03-20 for NVIDIA. The predecessor is null for Intel and Ampere-MW for NVIDIA. The successor is null for Intel and Blackwell-MW for NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each GPU?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile delivers 384.0 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 15.82 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Intel part uses system shared memory, while the NVIDIA part has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the RT core counts?

A: The Intel part lists no RT cores, while the NVIDIA part includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Intel part has a 6 W TDP, and the NVIDIA part has a 100 W TDP.

Q: Which DirectX version does each support?

A: The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What are the process nodes?

A: The Intel part uses 10 nm, and the NVIDIA part uses 5 nm from TSMC.

The Verdict

The recorded data contains no benchmark results, so the verdict must rest on specification differences alone. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is a low-power integrated GPU with a 6 W TDP, 192 shading units, and system shared memory. It is suitable for basic display tasks and light workloads where power draw is a priority. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation is a high-throughput mobile GPU with a 100 W TDP, 5120 shading units, 40 RT cores, 160 tensor cores, and 12 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory.

For users who need ray tracing, tensor acceleration, or high-bandwidth memory, the NVIDIA part is the only option in this comparison. For users who require minimal power consumption and only basic graphics output, the Intel part fits that role. The absence of benchmark data means neither part can be declared a performance winner in real applications. The theoretical peak rates, however, show that the NVIDIA part has a substantially larger compute and memory resource pool. The choice between the two depends entirely on the target workload and power budget, as the data does not provide any measured performance evidence to override those specification-based conclusions.