Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation Comparison

Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile and NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The Intel part is a 6 W integrated processor for lightweight mobile devices, while the NVIDIA card is a 210 W workstation-class discrete accelerator. The database records no shared benchmarks for these two, so the comparison relies on their architectural specifications and the available performance scores for the RTX 4500 Ada Generation.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is designed for a completely different task set than the RTX 4500 Ada Generation. Its integrated nature, with system-shared memory and a 6 W power draw, targets basic display output and light 2D workloads in portable devices. The chip uses the Xe-LP architecture built on Intel's 10 nm process, and its performance metrics reflect this scope. The pixel rate is 4.000 GPixel/s, the texture rate is 12.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute sits at 384.0 GFLOPS. These figures suit everyday desktop tasks but nothing more demanding.

The RTX 4500 Ada Generation wins in every measurable performance category. It uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a 45,900 million transistor count on a 379 mm² die. Its pixel rate is 206.4 GPixel/s, texture rate is 619.2 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute reaches 39.63 TFLOPS. The card also includes dedicated hardware that the Intel chip lacks entirely: 60 ray tracing cores and 240 tensor cores. The database shows its OpenCL score at 160786 and Vulkan score at 171401, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores.

The use-case split is clear. The Intel chip handles basic mobile graphics with minimal power consumption. The NVIDIA card handles professional 3D rendering, ray-traced workloads, and compute-intensive tasks where the 24 GB GDDR6 memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth become essential.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share almost nothing architecturally beyond both being from major manufacturers. Intel's chip uses the Xe-LP architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The chip is called Twin Lake and belongs to the HD Graphics-T generation. NVIDIA's card uses Ada Lovelace, fabricated at TSMC on a 5 nm process. The NVIDIA chip is AD103.

The compute pipelines diverge sharply. Intel's GPU has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. NVIDIA's card has 7680 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. These are 40 times, 20 times, and 20 times more respectively. The NVIDIA card also adds 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores, neither of which appear in the Intel chip's specifications. The FP16 throughput tells a similar story: Intel reaches 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA reaches 39.63 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Intel GPU uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and a system-shared bus width. The NVIDIA card has dedicated 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s. The memory clock for NVIDIA is 2250 MHz, quoted as 18 Gbps effective. Intel's memory clock is simply listed as system shared.

The power and physical profiles are equally distinct. Intel's GPU has a 6 W TDP, uses a ring bus interface, and is described as an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs. NVIDIA's card has a 210 W TDP, uses PCIe 4.0 x16, is dual-slot, measures 245 mm in length and 112 mm in height, and provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The NVIDIA card has no power connectors listed but suggests a 550 W power supply. Intel's chip requires no power supply recommendation at all.

API support differs in DirectX version. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. The wins count is zero for both sides. However, the RTX 4500 Ada Generation has recorded scores in two tests, and those numbers can be read against its nearest rivals.

The Geekbench OpenCL score for the RTX 4500 Ada Generation is 160786. The Geekbench Vulkan score is 171401. The average benchmark score across these results is 166094. That average places the card in the 97th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the RTX 4500 Ada Generation is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500, which has an average score of 165217. It is 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7800, which scores 164894. The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X sits 1.5% ahead with 168574, and the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB trails by 2.2% with 162504. These margins are remarkably tight, all within roughly 3 percentage points of each other.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has no benchmark entries in the database. Its percentile rank of 50 is listed, but there is no average score to compare against any other GPU. The data cannot quantify how far behind the NVIDIA card it is, only that its position in the overall distribution is at the median while the NVIDIA card sits near the top.

The absence of head-to-head data means the performance gap must be inferred from the specification sheet. The FP32 ratio is roughly 103 to 1 in NVIDIA's favor, and the pixel rate ratio is roughly 51 to 1. These are the strongest quantitative comparisons available.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded field. The manufacturing process differs: Intel uses 10 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. The foundry also differs: Intel fabricates its own chip, while NVIDIA uses TSMC. Transistor counts are unknown for Intel but listed as 45,900 million for NVIDIA. Die size is unknown for Intel and 379 mm² for NVIDIA, giving a transistor density of 121.1M / mm² for the NVIDIA part.

Clock speeds differ substantially. Intel's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 1000 MHz. NVIDIA's base clock is 2070 MHz with a boost of 2580 MHz. Memory clocks are not directly comparable since Intel's memory is system shared while NVIDIA's is 2250 MHz, described as 18 Gbps effective.

Memory specifications diverge completely. Intel has system-shared size, type, bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. NVIDIA has 24 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts differ by an order of magnitude or more. Intel has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. NVIDIA has 7680 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. NVIDIA also has 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores, while Intel lists none.

Rates and throughput follow the same pattern. Intel's pixel rate is 4.000 GPixel/s, texture rate is 12.00 GTexel/s, FP32 is 384.0 GFLOPS, and FP16 is 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. NVIDIA's pixel rate is 206.4 GPixel/s, texture rate is 619.2 GTexel/s, FP32 is 39.63 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 39.63 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

Power and physical specs differ drastically. Intel has a 6 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and a ring bus interface. NVIDIA has a 210 W TDP, dual-slot width, no power connectors, PCIe 4.0 x16, a suggested 550 W PSU, dimensions of 245 mm by 112 mm, and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Release dates differ. Intel was released on 2024-12-31, while NVIDIA was released on 2023-08-08. The NVIDIA card lists a predecessor as Workstation Ampere and a successor as Blackwell PRO W. Intel lists neither.

API support matches for OpenGL and Vulkan at 4.6 and 1.4 respectively, but DirectX differs: Intel supports 12 (12_1) while NVIDIA supports 12 Ultimate (12_2).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation has 7680 shading units, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has 192, a 40-fold difference.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. They differ in DirectX support: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a 6 W TDP. The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation has a 210 W TDP, which is 35 times higher.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The Intel chip uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How does the RTX 4500 Ada Generation compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500, 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7800, 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X, and 2.2% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The Intel chip delivers 384.0 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA card delivers 39.63 TFLOPS, a ratio of roughly 103 to 1 in NVIDIA's favor.

The Verdict

The data presents no ambiguity about which GPU delivers more performance. The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation outscores the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile in every recorded specification category, from shading units and texture rate to FP32 compute and memory bandwidth. Its benchmark results, with an average score of 166094 and a 97th percentile rank, confirm its position near the top of the database. The Intel chip sits at the 50th percentile with no benchmark scores recorded.

The choice between them depends entirely on the use case, not on performance equivalence. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile suits systems where 6 W power consumption and integrated graphics are the priority, such as portable devices where display output is the main requirement. The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation suits professional workstations that need 24 GB of GDDR6 memory, 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, ray tracing hardware, and tensor cores for compute acceleration.

The specification sheet shows the Intel chip cannot handle the workloads the NVIDIA card is built for. The NVIDIA card also cannot be used in the power-constrained environments where the Intel chip operates. They are not competing products in the same market segment. The database records them for entirely different classes of hardware, and the performance data confirms this separation. For anyone choosing between them, the workload determines the selection: integrated mobile graphics versus workstation-class discrete compute.