Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database does not include head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile versus the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation. The wins count for both parts is zero in the available data. Without measured performance scores, the analysis must rely on architectural specifications and derived throughput figures. The Intel part delivers 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA part delivers 24.72 TFLOPS, a 64.4x difference in raw floating-point throughput. Pixel throughput shows a similar gap: the Intel iGPU manages 4.000 GPixel/s, whereas the NVIDIA GPU reaches 133.2 GPixel/s, a 33.3x difference. Texture fill rates differ by 32.2x, with the Intel part at 12.00 GTexel/s and the NVIDIA part at 386.3 GTexel/s. These figures indicate the NVIDIA GPU holds a decisive advantage in every measurable compute category, though the absence of actual benchmark scores means no application-specific performance conclusions can be drawn from the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to fundamentally different design families. Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture on the Twin Lake chip, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It is part of the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD104 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The NVIDIA part integrates 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size for its iGPU, so no density comparison is possible.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The Intel iGPU contains 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The NVIDIA GPU contains 7,424 shading units, 232 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. Beyond raw units, the NVIDIA part includes 58 ray tracing cores and 232 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Intel design. FP16 throughput on the Intel part is 768.0 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while the NVIDIA part achieves 24.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, indicating full-rate FP16 execution.

Memory architecture differs completely. The Intel iGPU uses System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GPU pairs 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. Clock behavior also diverges: Intel runs at a 300 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 1290 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost, with memory at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective. Power consumption differs by 18.3x, with Intel at 6 W and NVIDIA at 110 W. Both use an IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs. API support favors NVIDIA with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus Intel's DirectX 12 (12_1), while both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface is a Ring Bus for Intel and PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Release dates place the Intel part at 2024-12-31 and the NVIDIA part at 2023-03-20. NVIDIA lists a predecessor (Ampere-MW) and successor (Blackwell-MW); Intel lists neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 24.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 64.4x higher than the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile's 384.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Do both parts support ray tracing?

A: No. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation includes 58 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel part relies on System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: Intel uses a 10 nm process for the Twin Lake chip. NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm process for the AD104 chip, which contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture throughput?

A: The NVIDIA part reaches 133.2 GPixel/s and 386.3 GTexel/s. The Intel part reaches 4.000 GPixel/s and 12.00 GTexel/s, meaning NVIDIA is 33.3x faster in pixel rate and 32.2x faster in texture rate.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is rated at 6 W. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation is rated at 110 W, an 18.3x difference.

Specification Differences

The database lists no overlapping fields where the two parts match, so all primary specifications differ.

• Process Node: Intel 10 nm vs NVIDIA 5 nm
• Foundry: Intel vs TSMC
• Transistors: Unknown for Intel vs 35,800 million for NVIDIA
• Die Size: Unknown for Intel vs 294 mm² for NVIDIA
• Transistor Density: Not listed for Intel vs 121.8M / mm² for NVIDIA
• Base Clock: 300 MHz vs 1290 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1000 MHz vs 1665 MHz
• Memory Clock: System Shared vs 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: System Shared vs 12 GB
• Memory Type: System Shared vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared vs 192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent vs 432.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 192 vs 7,424
• Texture Mapping Units: 12 vs 232
• ROPs: 4 vs 80
• Ray Tracing Cores: None vs 58
• Tensor Cores: None vs 232
• Pixel Rate: 4.000 GPixel/s vs 133.2 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 12.00 GTexel/s vs 386.3 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 384.0 GFLOPS vs 24.72 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) vs 24.72 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 6 W vs 110 W
• Power Connectors: None listed for Intel vs None for NVIDIA
• Bus Interface: Ring Bus vs PCIe 4.0 x16
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Release Date: 2024-12-31 vs 2023-03-20
• Predecessor: None vs Ampere-MW
• Successor: None vs Blackwell-MW

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins exclusively in power efficiency categories. Its 6 W TDP is 18.3x lower than the NVIDIA part's 110 W, making it suitable for ultra-low-power portable devices where thermal and battery constraints dominate. The Ring Bus interface and system-shared memory further reduce component complexity, and the integrated design requires no dedicated power connectors. Its smaller shading unit count (192 versus 7,424) and lower clock speeds align with a design goal of minimal energy draw rather than peak throughput.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation wins in every performance category recorded in the database. It provides 64.4x more FP32 compute, 33.3x more pixel throughput, and 32.2x more texture throughput. It introduces ray tracing and tensor core capabilities that the Intel part lacks entirely. Its dedicated 12 GB GDDR6 memory with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth eliminates reliance on system memory bandwidth. The 1:1 FP16 ratio enables full-rate half-precision workloads, whereas the Intel part operates at a 2:1 ratio. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides a broader data path for host communication compared to Intel's Ring Bus. DirectX 12 Ultimate support adds features beyond the Intel part's DirectX 12 (12_1) baseline.

The Verdict

The data indicates two processors built for entirely different roles. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, with its 6 W TDP, 192 shading units, and system-shared memory, serves basic display output and light 2D workloads in low-power mobile systems. Its 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 throughput and 4.000 GPixel/s pixel rate are sufficient for fundamental graphics tasks, but the absence of ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and dedicated VRAM positions it at the entry level.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation, with 24.72 TFLOPS FP32, 58 ray tracing cores, 232 tensor cores, and 12 GB GDDR6 at 432.0 GB/s, addresses demanding workloads including ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated tasks. Its 133.2 GPixel/s and 386.3 GTexel/s rates support high-resolution, high-frame-rate scenarios. The 110 W TDP reflects the power cost of this capability.

Selection depends on the workload and power budget. For portable devices prioritizing battery life and minimal heat output, the Intel part's 6 W envelope is the clear match. For applications requiring maximum graphics compute, dedicated memory bandwidth, or hardware ray tracing, the NVIDIA part dominates every recorded metric. The database shows no benchmark scores for either part, but the specification gap is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GPU outperforms the Intel iGPU by orders of magnitude in compute, memory, and feature support, while the Intel iGPU offers a dramatically lower power footprint.