AMD Radeon 860M vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database results for these two integrated graphics solutions are asymmetrical. The AMD Radeon 860M has a full set of benchmark measurements, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 has no recorded scores in the database at the time of analysis. Direct head-to-head comparisons are therefore limited to the available data for the AMD part.

The AMD Radeon 860M achieves an average benchmark score of 26401. Its percentile ranking places it above 72 percent of all GPUs in the database. The Geekbench OpenCL result for the AMD part is 22759, while the Geekbench Vulkan score is 30043. The Vulkan result is approximately 32 percent higher than the OpenCL result, indicating a meaningful performance advantage under the Vulkan API in the recorded tests.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 has an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50. The database contains no rival entries for this part, and no benchmark scores have been recorded. The absence of measurements means the Intel part cannot be positioned against the AMD part in any numeric comparison. The data confirms that the AMD Radeon 860M is the only one of the two with verified performance results.

The nearest rivals for the AMD Radeon 860M provide context for its standing. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 has an average score of 26421, which is 0.1 percent higher than the AMD part. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26553, a 0.6 percent advantage. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26683, which is 1.1 percent higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26331, which is 0.3 percent lower than the AMD part. These deltas are all within a narrow band, placing the AMD Radeon 860M in a tightly contested performance cluster.

There are no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries between the two parts, and neither part records a win in the database. The wins counter shows 0 for both. The only definitive statement the data supports is that the AMD Radeon 860M has measurable scores, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 does not have any recorded measurements yet.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon 860M?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26401 in the database.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B370 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has an empty benchmark array, an average score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed in the database.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 860M compare to its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX550?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 has an average score of 26421, which is 0.1 percent higher than the 860M. The two are effectively matched in the recorded data.

Q: What are the Geekbench results for the AMD Radeon 860M?

A: The Geekbench OpenCL score is 22759, and the Geekbench Vulkan score is 30043.

Q: What percentile ranking does each part hold?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M ranks above 72 percent of all GPUs. The Intel Arc Pro B370 ranks above 50 percent of all GPUs, though this is based on no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has a boost clock of 3000 MHz, which is higher than the Intel Arc Pro B370 boost clock of 2400 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different manufacturers and use distinct architectures. The AMD Radeon 860M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The chip is called Krackan Point, and it belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. Its chip is called Panther Lake, and it belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation.

The manufacturing process differs: AMD uses TSMC at 4 nm, while Intel uses its own foundry at 3 nm. Both parts report unknown transistor counts and die sizes, so no comparison can be made on those metrics.

The shading unit count differs substantially. The Intel part has 1280 shading units, while the AMD part has 512. The Intel part also has 40 texture mapping units versus 32 on the AMD part, and 20 raster output units versus 16. The Intel part has 10 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part has 8. Neither part lists tensor cores in the database.

Compute throughput follows the shading unit count. The Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. The Intel part therefore has exactly twice the FP32 throughput of the AMD part. The FP16 comparison is more pronounced: the Intel part delivers 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD part delivers 3.072 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

The pixel rate and texture rate are identical for both parts. Each achieves 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. This is notable because the Intel part has more texture units and ROPs, yet the recorded rates match the AMD part exactly, likely due to the lower boost clock on the Intel part.

Clock speeds differ. The AMD part has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The AMD part boosts 600 MHz higher than the Intel part.

The bus interface also differs. The AMD Radeon 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 lists its bus interface as IGP. Both parts are described as IGP slot width, require no power connectors, and have display outputs labeled as Portable Device Dependent.

Power consumption differs. The AMD Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 has a TDP of 25 W. The Intel part consumes 10 W more according to the recorded specifications.

Both parts support identical API levels: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Memory is system shared for both, with system dependent bandwidth. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The release dates differ. The AMD Radeon 860M was released on February 28, 2025. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a release date of January 26, 2026. The AMD part is the earlier release by roughly 11 months. The AMD part lists its predecessor as Navi II IGP, while the Intel part lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-WM.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear but incomplete picture. The AMD Radeon 860M has verified benchmark results, placing it in a competitive cluster near the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, NVIDIA RTX A4000, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060. Its percentile ranking of 72 indicates it outperforms a majority of the database.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 has no recorded benchmark scores. Its theoretical specifications are stronger on paper: double the FP32 throughput, more shading units, more texture units, more ROPs, and more ray tracing cores. The identical pixel rate and texture rate between the two parts, however, suggest that the higher boost clock of the AMD part compensates for its lower core counts in those specific measured rates.

The data shows that the AMD Radeon 860M is the only one of the two with measured performance. The Intel Arc Pro B370 remains unverified in the database. Users seeking a part with confirmed results can reference the AMD Radeon 860M, which sits within 1.1 percent of the NVIDIA RTX A4000 and 0.3 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060. The Intel part, despite its architectural advantages in raw throughput, cannot be positioned against any rival until benchmark data is recorded.

The choice between the two depends on whether measured results or theoretical specifications take priority. The AMD part has the data. The Intel part has the higher specification ceiling, but no measurements exist to confirm its real-world standing.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 860M | Intel Arc Pro B370 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Xe3-LPG |

| Chip | Krackan Point | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| Base Clock | 600 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3000 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1280 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 32 | 40 |

| Raster Output Units | 16 | 20 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | 10 |

| FP32 Performance | 3.072 TFLOPS | 6.144 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 48.00 GPixel/s | 48.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 96.00 GTexel/s | 96.00 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | IGP |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2026-01-26 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | HD Graphics-WM |

| Average Benchmark Score | 26401 | 0 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 72 | 50 |

The two parts share several traits: both are IGP slot width, both require no power connectors, both use system shared memory, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both have display outputs labeled Portable Device Dependent. Neither part has a launch MSRP, transistor count, die size, or successor recorded. The identical pixel rate and texture rate are the most striking shared specification, despite the differing core counts and clock speeds.