AMD Radeon RX 9050 vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 and Intel Arc Pro B370 occupy distinct positions in the database, with the former serving as a discrete add-in board and the latter functioning as an integrated graphics processor. The recorded data shows a significant performance gap driven by architectural and physical differences. The RX 9050 delivers substantially higher raw compute throughput, while the Arc Pro B370 offers a dramatically lower power envelope and a more recent release window. The Verdict section below summarizes which device is appropriate based strictly on the measurable specifications and benchmark positioning available.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 is the clear choice for any workload requiring high-throughput rendering or compute, as its specifications indicate a 73% advantage in FP32 performance over the Intel Arc Pro B370. The RX 9050 achieves 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Arc Pro B370 manages 6.144 TFLOPS, making the former more suitable for tasks that rely on single-precision math, such as real-time graphics and general-purpose GPU compute. Furthermore, the RX 9050’s dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth provides a self-contained memory subsystem, whereas the Arc Pro B370 depends on system shared memory, with bandwidth rated as system dependent. For users who need a discrete graphics solution with predictable memory performance and higher throughput, the RX 9050 is the only viable option from this comparison.

The Intel Arc Pro B370, by contrast, is positioned for ultra-low-power or mobile integration scenarios where a 25 W TDP and no external power connectors are mandatory. Its 3 nm process node, fabricated by Intel, allows for integration directly into a processor package, as indicated by its IGP bus interface and slot width classification. The B370’s FP16 performance of 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) exceeds its own FP32 output, suggesting a design optimized for mixed-precision workloads, but its overall compute capability remains lower than the RX 9050. The data does not support a scenario where the B370 outperforms the RX 9050 in any measured benchmark category; instead, it suits systems where power consumption and physical footprint are the primary constraints, not peak performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process technologies. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 uses the Navi 44 chip based on RDNA 4.0, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 29,700 million on a 199 mm² die. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Panther Lake chip based on Xe3-LPG, manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. This process node difference suggests the B370 may offer better power efficiency per transistor, but the RX 9050’s higher transistor density of 149.2M per mm² indicates a more complex compute layout.

Core configurations diverge significantly. The RX 9050 contains 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs), paired with 16 ray tracing cores. The Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, with 10 ray tracing cores. Despite having fewer shading units, the RX 9050 achieves higher throughput due to its much higher clock speeds: the RX 9050 boosts to 2600 MHz with a base clock of 1330 MHz, while the B370 boosts to 2400 MHz with a base clock of just 300 MHz. The B370’s lower base clock reflects its integrated nature, likely running at variable frequencies depending on thermal and power budgets.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The RX 9050 uses a dedicated 128-bit GDDR6 interface with a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The B370 relies on system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, a bus width rated as system shared, and bandwidth described as system dependent. This means the B370’s memory performance cannot be quantified independently and will vary with the host system’s memory configuration, whereas the RX 9050 offers fixed, predictable bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the two GPUs, so the comparison relies on their individual specification-derived rates and the nearest rival data, which is empty for both. The most decisive measurable difference is in pixel and texture throughput. The RX 9050 delivers a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 166.4 GTexel/s, which are 3.47 times and 1.73 times higher than the Arc Pro B370’s respective rates of 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. These figures indicate that the RX 9050 will complete rasterization and texture sampling tasks at a substantially faster pace, directly impacting frame rates in graphics workloads.

In FP32 compute, the RX 9050’s 10.65 TFLOPS outperforms the B370’s 6.144 TFLOPS by 73%, a gap that will be evident in physics simulations, post-processing effects, and compute shaders. Conversely, in FP16 compute, the B370 achieves 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 9050 achieves 10.65 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. This means the B370 is 15% faster than the RX 9050 in half-precision arithmetic, which could benefit workloads that leverage FP16 acceleration, such as certain AI inference tasks or image processing pipelines. However, the RX 9050’s FP16 rate matches its FP32 rate, indicating no dedicated tensor cores or specialized FP16 paths, whereas the B370’s 2:1 FP16 ratio suggests a hardware mechanism for doubling half-precision throughput.

The power consumption figures accentuate the performance-per-watt distinction. The RX 9050 has a TDP of 92 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the B370 has a TDP of 25 W and no power connectors, drawing power directly from the host processor’s power delivery. This 3.68x difference in TDP means the B370 can operate in passively cooled or fanless designs, whereas the RX 9050 necessitates a dual-slot cooler with an 8-pin power connector.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 has 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 73% higher than the Intel Arc Pro B370’s 6.144 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B370 support faster half-precision compute than the AMD Radeon RX 9050?

A: Yes, the B370 achieves 12.29 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 9050 achieves 10.65 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, making the B370 15% faster in FP16 workloads.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two GPUs?

A: The RX 9050 has a dedicated 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the B370 uses system shared memory with bandwidth rated as system dependent, meaning no fixed bandwidth figure is available.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The RX 9050 has a TDP of 92 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU with a single 8-pin connector, while the B370 has a TDP of 25 W and requires no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, compared to 1024 shading units on the AMD Radeon RX 9050, despite the RX 9050 having higher overall FP32 throughput.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, indicating identical API feature levels.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 wins in every category that depends on raw fill rates and single-precision compute. Its 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate is 3.47 times higher than the B370’s 48.00 GPixel/s, which translates to faster rasterization and higher resolution rendering capability. The 166.4 GTexel/s texture rate is 1.73 times higher than the B370’s 96.00 GTexel/s, benefiting texture-heavy scenes. The FP32 advantage of 10.65 TFLOPS against 6.144 TFLOPS gives the RX 9050 a clear edge in standard graphics rendering, physics calculations, and general-purpose GPU tasks that do not use half-precision optimizations. The dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s ensures that the RX 9050 does not compete with the CPU for memory access, a scenario the B370 must contend with due to its system shared memory architecture.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins in power efficiency and half-precision compute. Its 25 W TDP is 67 W lower than the RX 9050’s 92 W, making it suitable for ultra-portable devices or embedded systems where heat dissipation is limited. The B370’s FP16 output of 12.29 TFLOPS surpasses the RX 9050’s 10.65 TFLOPS by 15%, indicating a specialized advantage in workloads that utilize FP16 arithmetic, such as machine learning inference or image processing that tolerates reduced precision. Additionally, the B370’s 3 nm process node from Intel, compared to the RX 9050’s 4 nm process from TSMC, suggests a more modern fabrication process, though the database does not provide transistor counts to confirm density advantages. The B370 also integrates directly into a processor as an IGP, eliminating the need for a separate card, which is a structural win for compact system designs.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 9050 | Intel Arc Pro B370 |

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

| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |

| Chip | Navi 44 | Panther Lake |

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Xe3-LPG |

| Generation | Navi IV (RX 9000) | Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 29,700 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 199 mm² | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 149.2M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1330 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1920 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 64 | 40 |

| ROPs | 64 | 20 |

| RT Cores | 16 | 10 |

| Pixel Rate | 166.4 GPixel/s | 48.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 166.4 GTexel/s | 96.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 10.65 TFLOPS | 6.144 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1) | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 92 W | 25 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2026-07-27 | 2026-01-26 |

| Predecessor | Navi III | HD Graphics-WM |