AMD Radeon 880M vs Intel Arc Pro B390 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 880M and the Intel Arc Pro B390. The database shows no shared test scores, no win counts for either part, and no comparative deltas. This means the two integrated GPUs cannot be ranked against each other using matched workloads from the same test suite.

What can be established from the database is the AMD Radeon 880M's absolute performance profile. It scores 535 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 31,285 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 40,006 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its Passmark results include 7,615 in G3D, 3,719 in GPU Compute, 969 in G2D, 97 in DirectX 9, 73 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 12, and 31 in DirectX 10. The average benchmark score across these runs is 8,436. The Intel Arc Pro B390, by contrast, has no benchmark entries in the database at all.

The absence of data for the Intel part is itself a meaningful analytical point. The Radeon 880M sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc Pro B390 is recorded at the 50th percentile. That percentile ranking is not derived from measured scores in the database, since the Arc Pro B390 has no scores listed. The percentile field indicates placement, but without benchmark numbers, the comparison cannot be quantified.

The nearest rivals for the Radeon 880M provide context. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX has an average score of 8,427, which is 0.1% below the Radeon 880M. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 averages 8,458, putting it 0.3% ahead. The AMD Radeon HD 8870M also averages 8,462, 0.3% ahead. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X averages 8,325, which is 1.3% behind. These deltas are small, indicating the Radeon 880M operates in a tightly clustered performance band.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 has no nearest rivals listed, which means the database cannot place it relative to any other GPU using measured scores. The 50th percentile figure stands alone, with no supporting benchmark data to validate it.

Where Each One Wins

Without head-to-head results, the win analysis must rely on architectural and specification data from the database.

The AMD Radeon 880M uses the Strix Point chip on TSMC's 4 nm process. It has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. It includes 12 ray tracing cores. Its boost clock is 2,900 MHz, with a base clock of 400 MHz. The pixel rate is 46.40 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 4.454 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same 4.454 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The thermal design power is 15 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8. The transistor count is 34,000 million on a 233 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 145.9 million per mm².

The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip on Intel's 3 nm process. It has 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. It also includes 12 ray tracing cores. Its boost clock is 2,500 MHz, with a base clock of 300 MHz. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 7.680 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput is 15.36 TFLOPS in a 2:1 ratio. The thermal design power is 80 W. The bus interface is listed as IGP. Transistor count and die size are unknown.

The Intel part has double the shading units of the AMD part, 1,536 versus 768. It also has 50% more ROPs, 24 versus 16. Its FP32 throughput is higher at 7.680 TFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS, a 72.4% advantage. Its FP16 throughput is more than three times higher at 15.36 TFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS. The pixel rate is higher at 60.00 GPixel/s versus 46.40 GPixel/s, a 29.3% advantage. The texture rate is lower, 120.0 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s, which is a 13.8% deficit for Intel.

The AMD part draws 15 W against Intel's 80 W. That is a fivefold difference in thermal design power. The AMD part also runs a higher boost clock, 2,900 MHz versus 2,500 MHz. The AMD chip is manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm node, while Intel uses its own 3 nm process. The AMD part has 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die. Intel's transistor count and die size are not recorded.

The Verdict

The data does not support a definitive performance verdict between these two GPUs. The AMD Radeon 880M has measured benchmark scores across ten tests, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 has none. The single comparative datapoint is the percentile field: 43rd percentile for AMD, 50th percentile for Intel. That suggests the Intel part is ranked higher in the database's overall distribution, but no measured score backs that ranking.

From a specification standpoint, the Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers substantially higher raw compute. Its FP32 figure is 7.680 TFLOPS, its FP16 figure is 15.36 TFLOPS, it has 1,536 shading units, and it has 24 ROPs. The AMD Radeon 880M counters with a lower thermal design power of 15 W versus 80 W, a higher boost clock of 2,900 MHz versus 2,500 MHz, and a higher texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s.

The choice between these parts depends on which data points are given priority. For raw shader throughput and pixel output, the Intel part's recorded specifications are higher. For power efficiency and texture fill, the AMD part's recorded specifications are higher. The 15 W TDP of the AMD part indicates a design aimed at constrained power envelopes, while the 80 W TDP of the Intel part indicates a design that assumes a larger power budget.

Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded, so no pricing analysis is possible. Both are listed as IGP slot width with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The database records the AMD part as active in production, released on July 14, 2024. The Intel part is also active, released on January 26, 2026. The AMD part's predecessor is Navi II IGP. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM. Neither has a successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 1,536 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 880M has 768.

Q: What are the FP32 throughput figures for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS FP32. The Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: How do the thermal design powers compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W.

Q: What benchmark scores exist for the Intel Arc Pro B390?

A: The database lists no benchmark scores for the Intel Arc Pro B390. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon 880M?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8,436 across its recorded tests.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M is at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Arc Pro B390 is at the 50th percentile, though it has no measured benchmark scores in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and use different process nodes. AMD builds the Radeon 880M on TSMC's 4 nm process, with the Strix Point chip and RDNA 3.5 architecture. Intel builds the Arc Pro B390 on its own 3 nm process, with the Panther Lake chip and Xe3-LPG architecture.

The AMD part integrates 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 145.9 million per mm². Intel's transistor count and die size are unknown, so density cannot be calculated.

Shading unit count differs by a factor of two. The Intel part has 1,536 shading units against AMD's 768. Texture mapping units are equal at 48 each. ROPs differ, with Intel at 24 and AMD at 16. Ray tracing cores are equal at 12 each.

Clock behavior differs. The AMD part has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2,900 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2,500 MHz. AMD's boost clock is 400 MHz higher.

Memory architecture is identical in form: both use System Shared memory with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. Neither has dedicated VRAM. The bus interface differs, with AMD using PCIe 4.0 x8 and Intel listed as IGP.

Rasterization rates follow the ROP and clock differences. The Intel part achieves 60.00 GPixel/s versus AMD's 46.40 GPixel/s. Texture rates invert the relationship: AMD achieves 139.2 GTexel/s against Intel's 120.0 GTexel/s. This is because AMD's higher boost clock compensates for its equal TMU count.

Compute throughput diverges sharply. AMD's FP32 is 4.454 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is the same 4.454 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. Intel's FP32 is 7.680 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is 15.36 TFLOPS in a 2:1 ratio. The FP16 ratio difference indicates Intel's architecture can double FP16 throughput relative to FP32, while AMD's does not.

API support is identical across both parts: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Power delivery differs sharply, with AMD at 15 W and Intel at 80 W. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for both.

The generation labels place them in different product lines. AMD's is a Navi III IGP from the Strix Point Mobile generation. Intel's is an Arc Graphics-WM from the Panther Lake generation. The AMD part's predecessor is Navi II IGP, and the Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM. Release dates differ by roughly 18 months, with AMD on July 14, 2024 and Intel on January 26, 2026. Both remain active in production.