AMD Radeon 780M vs Intel Arc Pro B390 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Radeon 780M holds a decisive edge in the recorded benchmark data, though the comparison is limited by the absence of matching test scores for the Intel Arc Pro B390. The database contains three benchmark results for the AMD part, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 has no recorded benchmark scores at all. This makes a direct per-test comparison impossible at present.

The AMD Radeon 780M scores 480 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 18,602 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 33,683 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 17,588. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has an average benchmark score of zero, reflecting the lack of recorded data. The percentile rankings tell a similar story: the AMD part sits in the 61st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Intel part sits in the 50th percentile.

With no head-to-head benchmark entries in the database, the relative performance of these two parts cannot be measured directly. The nearest rivals for the AMD Radeon 780M provide context for its standing. It sits 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (which averages 17,551), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509), 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639), and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17,666). These deltas are small, placing the 780M in a tightly contested performance cluster.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 has no nearest rivals listed in the database, so no comparative positioning is available for it. Any claims about its benchmark performance would be unsupported by recorded measurements. The data confirms that the AMD Radeon 780M is a measured, quantifiable performer, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 currently exists in the database without benchmark validation.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturers and use fundamentally different design approaches. The AMD Radeon 780M uses the Phoenix chip, built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip, built on Xe3-LPG architecture, and belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM generation.

The manufacturing processes differ sharply. The AMD part is fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 3 nm process from Intel's own foundry. The AMD chip contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip has unknown transistor count, unknown die size, and no recorded transistor density.

Shader hardware diverges significantly. The AMD Radeon 780M has 768 shading units, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 has 1,536, exactly double. Both parts have 48 texture mapping units, but the AMD part has 32 ROPs versus 24 for the Intel part. Both have 12 ray tracing cores. Neither part lists tensor cores in the database.

Clock speeds favor the AMD part at the boost end. The AMD Radeon 780M runs at a base of 800 MHz and boosts to 2,900 MHz. The Intel Arc Pro B390 runs at a base of 300 MHz and boosts to 2,500 MHz. The AMD part's higher boost clock contributes to its higher pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part. Texture rates also favor AMD at 139.2 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s for Intel.

Compute throughput presents a more nuanced picture. The AMD Radeon 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, ahead of the Intel Arc Pro B390's 7.680 TFLOPS. However, in FP16 the Intel part delivers 15.36 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD part delivers 8.909 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel architecture clearly focuses more on half-precision throughput.

Power consumption differs by a wide margin. The AMD Radeon 780M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W. Both are integrated graphics processors with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The AMD part uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel part uses an IGP bus interface. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for AMD and portable device dependent for Intel. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data supports the AMD Radeon 780M as the only part with measurable performance in the database. It has three recorded benchmark scores, an average score of 17,588, and a 61st percentile ranking. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has zero recorded benchmarks, zero average score, and a 50th percentile ranking. Any buyer or system designer choosing between these parts based on the database would find evidence only for the AMD side.

The AMD Radeon 780M also holds the advantage in raw rasterization throughput. Its 92.80 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the Intel part's 60.00 GPixel/s, and its 139.2 GTexel/s texture rate exceeds 120.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute also favors AMD at 8.909 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS. For general graphics workloads, the AMD part has the measured edge.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 counters in specific areas. It has double the shading units of the AMD part, 1,536 versus 768, which could benefit workloads that scale with shader count. Its FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS is substantially higher than the AMD part's 8.909 TFLOPS, suggesting an advantage in half-precision compute tasks. The Intel part also uses a newer 3 nm process versus 4 nm for AMD.

Power efficiency favors AMD decisively. The 780M operates at 15 W TDP, while the Intel part consumes 80 W. For integrated graphics in portable or low-power systems, the AMD part delivers its measured performance at a fraction of the power envelope. The Intel part's higher TDP may limit its deployment in battery-constrained devices.

Release timing differs: the AMD Radeon 780M was released in January 2024, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 is dated January 2026. Both are listed as Active in production status. The AMD part has a predecessor (Navi II IGP) and successor (Navi III IGP) listed, while the Intel part lists only a predecessor (HD Graphics-WM) with no successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M has an average benchmark score of 17,588, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 has an average benchmark score of zero, as no benchmark results are recorded for it.

Q: How do the FP32 compute capabilities compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS, giving AMD a higher single-precision throughput.

Q: What about FP16 performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16 performance with a 2:1 ratio, which is higher than the AMD Radeon 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 1,536 shading units, exactly double the 768 shading units found in the AMD Radeon 780M.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W. Neither requires power connectors, and neither has a suggested PSU listed.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 780M wins in all measured benchmark categories simply because it has recorded scores and the Intel Arc Pro B390 does not. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480, Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,602, and Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,683 stand as the only benchmark data points in this comparison. The 61st percentile ranking versus 50th percentile for Intel further cements AMD's position in the database.

The AMD part also wins in pixel fill rate, delivering 92.80 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture fill rate favors AMD as well at 139.2 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. The higher boost clock of 2,900 MHz versus 2,500 MHz for Intel contributes to these wins. FP32 compute at 8.909 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS also goes to AMD.

Power efficiency is a clear AMD victory. The 15 W TDP versus 80 W for Intel means the AMD part can deliver its measured performance in a far lower power envelope. This makes it suitable for thin-and-light systems or any device where thermal and battery constraints matter. The Intel part's 80 W TDP suggests a much more power-hungry implementation, potentially limiting its use in portable devices.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins where architectural design favors it. The double shading unit count (1,536 versus 768) provides theoretical headroom for shader-bound workloads, though no benchmark data confirms this advantage in practice. FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS versus 8.909 TFLOPS gives Intel a substantial edge in half-precision compute, which could matter for AI inference or other reduced-precision workloads. The newer 3 nm process node versus 4 nm for AMD offers a manufacturing advantage, though the unknown transistor count and die size prevent quantification.

The Intel part also has a higher TDP budget, which could allow for sustained performance in workloads that push the GPU hard, assuming adequate cooling in the host device. Its IGP bus interface and portable device dependent display outputs suggest a design aimed at mobile or all-in-one form factors, though the 80 W TDP creates tension with that positioning.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The AMD Radeon 780M uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture. Manufacturing differs: TSMC 4 nm for AMD versus Intel 3 nm for the Intel part. The AMD chip has 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the Intel chip has unknown transistor count and die size.

Clock specifications favor AMD in boost. The AMD part runs at 800 MHz base and 2,900 MHz boost, versus 300 MHz base and 2,500 MHz boost for Intel. Both use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no dedicated memory comparison is possible.

The shader configuration shows a split: Intel has double the shading units (1,536 versus 768), both have 48 TMUs, AMD has more ROPs (32 versus 24), and both have 12 RT cores. Pixel rate goes to AMD at 92.80 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s, as does texture rate at 139.2 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. FP32 favors AMD at 8.909 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS, while FP16 favors Intel at 15.36 TFLOPS versus 8.909 TFLOPS.

Power and interface specs differ substantially. AMD has a 15 W TDP versus 80 W for Intel. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The AMD part uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel part uses an IGP bus interface. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for AMD and portable device dependent for Intel. Both support identical graphics APIs. Release dates differ by two years: January 2024 for AMD and January 2026 for Intel. Both are Active in production status. AMD lists a predecessor (Navi II IGP) and successor (Navi III IGP), while Intel lists only a predecessor (HD Graphics-WM).