Arc Pro A30M vs UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs with Arc Pro A30M, including specs and performance data.

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
2020
28 Watt
4.55

Arc Pro A30M outperforms UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs by a whopping 234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking652348
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.3021.12
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeDG2-128
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)8 August 2022 (2 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores481024
Core clock speed350 MHz1500 MHz
Boost clock speed1450 MHz2000 MHz
Number of transistorsno data7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data128.0
Floating-point processing powerno data4.096 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data128.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno dataNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12_112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.3

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD17
−224%
55−60
+224%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 11
−218%
35−40
+218%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−208%
40−45
+208%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12
−233%
40−45
+233%
Battlefield 5 10−12
−218%
35−40
+218%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−208%
40−45
+208%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−221%
90−95
+221%
Hitman 3 10
−200%
30−33
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 36
−233%
120−130
+233%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−233%
40−45
+233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−224%
55−60
+224%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−233%
150−160
+233%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−208%
40−45
+208%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Battlefield 5 10−12
−218%
35−40
+218%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−208%
40−45
+208%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−221%
90−95
+221%
Hitman 3 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
−233%
100−105
+233%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−233%
40−45
+233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17
−224%
55−60
+224%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−224%
55−60
+224%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−233%
150−160
+233%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−208%
40−45
+208%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−221%
90−95
+221%
Hitman 3 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12
−233%
40−45
+233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
−213%
50−55
+213%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
−200%
24−27
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−233%
150−160
+233%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−233%
40−45
+233%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−200%
21−24
+200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
Hitman 3 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−221%
90−95
+221%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Hitman 3 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%

This is how UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs and Arc Pro A30M compete in popular games:

  • Arc Pro A30M is 224% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.55 15.19
Recency 15 August 2020 8 August 2022
Chip lithography 10 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 50 Watt

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs has 78.6% lower power consumption.

Arc Pro A30M, on the other hand, has a 233.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc Pro A30M is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is a notebook graphics card while Arc Pro A30M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
Intel Arc Pro A30M
Arc Pro A30M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 458 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 6 votes

Rate Arc Pro A30M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.