Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is an integrated processor graphics solution built on the Twin Lake chip, using the Xe-LP architecture. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz, drawing a maximum of 6 W. The NVIDIA RTX A400 is a discrete workstation card based on the GA107 chip with Ampere architecture, featuring a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz. The database records no shared benchmark entries between these two parts, so the analysis relies on their individual recorded specifications, architecture, and measured performance against other GPUs in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is designed for a fundamentally different role than the NVIDIA RTX A400. As an IGP with a 6 W TDP, it exists to provide basic display output and light acceleration for portable devices. Its recorded data shows no dedicated benchmarks, and its percentile ranking sits at 50, indicating it lands in the middle of the database's GPU distribution. The RTX A400, by contrast, is a workstation-oriented card with a 50 W TDP, a single-slot cooler, and four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Its recorded benchmarks include a Passmark G3D score of 5983 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844, placing it at the 35th percentile.

The Intel part wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 6 W TDP is drastically lower than the RTX A400's 50 W, and its "System Shared" memory means no dedicated VRAM is needed. This makes it suitable for thin, fanless designs where the RTX A400 cannot fit. The RTX A400 wins in every measurable performance category. Its FP32 throughput is 2.706 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel part, a difference of roughly 7 times. The RTX A400 also supports hardware ray tracing with 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, while the Intel GPU lists no such units. For compute workloads, the RTX A400's Passmark GPU compute score of 2557 confirms its advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. Intel uses Xe-LP, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. NVIDIA uses Ampere, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The RTX A400 packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no direct comparison is possible there.

The RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI inference. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has no RT or tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA part's memory subsystem is entirely different: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel GPU uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The RTX A400's memory clock is 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed, while the Intel part's memory clock is simply "System Shared."

API support differs as well. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX A400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, whereas the Intel IGP connects via a Ring Bus. The RTX A400 is a single-slot card measuring 163 mm by 69 mm, while the Intel part is an IGP with no physical dimensions listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS, which is about 7 times the 384.0 GFLOPS of the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile.

Q: Does the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile support ray tracing?

A: No, the database lists no RT cores for the Intel part. The RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: How does the RTX A400 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RTX A400's average benchmark score is 6078. It is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6077, 0% delta) and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6117, -0.6% delta). It is 0.5% ahead of the Quadro P2000 (6049) and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M (6019).

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a 6 W TDP, while the RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP.

Q: Which API levels do the two GPUs support?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows clear differences across nearly every specification. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process at Intel, while the RTX A400 uses an 8 nm process at Samsung. The RTX A400 has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the Intel part's figures are unknown. Clock speeds differ substantially: the Intel GPU runs at 300 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost, while the RTX A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost.

The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX A400 versus 4.000 GPixel/s for the Intel GPU. Texture rate is 42.29 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. FP16 performance is 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) for the RTX A400, while the Intel part achieves 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 50 W versus 6 W. The RTX A400 has no power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU, while the Intel part is an IGP with no PSU recommendation. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the RTX A400, versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the Intel part. The RTX A400 was released on 2024-04-15, while the Intel part's release date is 2024-12-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile and the NVIDIA RTX A400. The Intel part has no benchmark scores recorded at all, so a direct comparison of measured performance is impossible. However, the RTX A400's recorded scores provide context. Its Passmark G3D score is 5983, its Passmark G2D score is 899, and its Passmark GPU compute score is 2557. In Geekbench, it scores 22844 in OpenCL and 22237 in Vulkan. The Intel part's average benchmark score is 0, and it has no percentile ranking other than 50, which is based on its position among all GPUs in the database.

The RTX A400's nearest rivals in the database show a tight cluster. The GeForce MX230 scores 6077 on average, just 0% behind. The Quadro P2000 scores 6049, 0.5% behind. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6117, which is 0.6% ahead of the RTX A400. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 6019, 1% behind. This indicates the RTX A400 sits in a competitive band where small percentage differences separate adjacent parts.

Given the absence of shared benchmarks, the data implies the Intel IGP is not in the same performance class. The RTX A400's FP32 output alone is 2.706 TFLOPS, while the Intel part's is 384.0 GFLOPS. The RTX A400's pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s is over 7 times the Intel part's 4.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate shows a 3.5 times gap in favor of the RTX A400. These figures, while not from a single benchmark, indicate a dominant performance advantage for the discrete card.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is an integrated solution for low-power portable devices, with a 6 W TDP and system shared memory. Its 50th percentile ranking suggests it is a mid-tier IGP, but its lack of recorded benchmark scores means it offers no measurable compute evidence in the database. It is suitable for basic graphics output and light tasks, but no performance data exists to support demanding workloads.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 is a workstation card with measurable performance. Its Passmark G3D score of 5983 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844 place it at the 35th percentile, and its nearest rivals confirm it is a mid-range option. Its 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores enable ray tracing and AI workloads that the Intel part cannot handle. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth provides dedicated resources, unlike the Intel part's shared memory.

Users requiring any form of compute acceleration, ray tracing, or dedicated VRAM should choose the RTX A400. The data shows it is roughly 7 times faster in FP32 throughput and has 4 times the shading units. Users prioritizing minimal power draw and integration should consider the Intel part, as its 6 W TDP and IGP form factor fit designs where a 50 W single-slot card cannot. The RTX A400's 50 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU indicate a system with more substantial power delivery. The Intel part's release date of 2024-12-31 is later than the RTX A400's 2024-04-15, but the architectural differences are far more significant than the timing. The database shows no scenario where the Intel IGP matches the RTX A400 in performance, but the Intel part occupies a valid niche in low-power mobile systems.