Intel Arc 130V Mobile vs Intel Arc B390 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear contrast between two Intel integrated graphics solutions aimed at different segments of the mobile market. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile, based on the Lunar Lake chip with Xe2-LPG architecture, is the efficiency-focused option with a 37 W TDP. The Intel Arc B390, built on the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, is the performance-focused part with an 80 W TDP. The recorded benchmark data shows the Arc B390 delivers a substantially higher raw compute throughput, while the Arc 130V operates at less than half the power envelope. The Arc 130V suits thin-and-light portable devices where power draw is the primary constraint. The Arc B390 targets performance-oriented laptops that can accommodate its higher power requirement. The B390's single recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with its nearest rivals being older NVIDIA discrete parts like the GeForce GT 520MX and GT 710. The Arc 130V has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so its performance classification relies on its architectural specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different chip generations and architectures. The Arc 130V uses the Lunar Lake chip with Xe2-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Arc B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, also on a 3 nm process, but fabricated at Intel. The die size for the Arc 130V is 172 mm², while the Arc B390's die size is listed as unknown in the database. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGPs) with a system-shared memory configuration, meaning their memory size, type, and bus width are all system-dependent rather than fixed specifications.

The compute unit configuration differs significantly between the two. The Arc 130V has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, 28 raster operation units, and 7 ray tracing cores. The Arc B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. This means the B390 has 71.4% more shading units and 71.4% more ray tracing cores, but the 130V has 16.7% more TMUs and 16.7% more ROPs. The B390 compensates for its lower TMU and ROP counts with a higher boost clock.

Clock speeds show a notable gap. The Arc 130V has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1850 MHz. The Arc B390 has the same 300 MHz base clock but a boost clock of 2500 MHz, which is 35.1% higher. This clock advantage, combined with the larger shader array, produces substantial throughput differences. The Arc 130V achieves a pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 103.6 GTexel/s. The Arc B390 delivers 60.00 GPixel/s and 120.0 GTexel/s, representing 15.8% higher pixel throughput and 15.8% higher texture throughput.

The FP32 compute figures show the most dramatic gap. The Arc 130V delivers 3.315 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS, which is 131.7% higher. In FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, the Arc 130V reaches 6.630 TFLOPS, while the Arc B390 reaches 15.36 TFLOPS. The B390's FP16 figure is more than double that of the 130V. The power draw difference is equally significant: the Arc 130V has a 37 W TDP, while the Arc B390 has an 80 W TDP, which is 116.2% higher.

Both processors support identical API feature sets: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both have no power connectors and use an IGP bus interface. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for both. The Arc 130V was released on 2024-09-23, while the Arc B390 has a release date of 2026-01-26. The Arc 130V lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor, while the Arc B390 has no predecessor listed. Both are currently marked as active production parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains only one recorded benchmark result for this comparison, and it belongs exclusively to the Arc B390. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test produced a score of 1482 for the B390. The Arc 130V has no benchmark entries in the database, so a direct numerical comparison between the two in any specific test is not possible from the recorded data.

The B390's Steel Nomad result places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the rankings are all older NVIDIA discrete parts. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% behind the B390. The GeForce 800M scores 1460, which is 1.5% behind. The GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, which is 2.5% behind. The GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, which is 2.7% behind. The B390 leads all four of these rivals, but the margins are narrow, ranging from 1.3% to 2.7%.

The average benchmark score for the B390 is 1482, which matches its single recorded result. The Arc 130V has an average benchmark score of 0 and no nearest rivals listed in the database, reflecting the absence of recorded test data. The compute throughput differences between the two parts, however, suggest what a direct benchmark comparison would show. The B390's 131.7% advantage in FP32 throughput and 35.1% higher boost clock indicate a substantial performance lead in compute-heavy workloads.

The pixel and texture rate differences are smaller but still meaningful. The B390 leads by 15.8% in both pixel fill rate and texture fill rate. The 130V's higher TMU and ROP counts partially offset its clock disadvantage, but not enough to overcome the B390's raw throughput advantages. In ray tracing, the B390 has 12 RT cores versus 7 on the 130V, a 71.4% increase, which suggests proportionally better ray tracing performance in supported titles.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has 1536 shading units, which is 71.4% more than the Intel Arc 130V Mobile's 896 shading units.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference between the two?

A: The Arc B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Arc 130V delivers 3.315 TFLOPS. The B390's FP32 throughput is 131.7% higher.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Arc 130V has a TDP of 37 W, while the Arc B390 has a TDP of 80 W. The B390 draws 116.2% more power.

Q: Are there any recorded benchmark scores for the Arc 130V?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark entries for the Arc 130V. Its average benchmark score is 0.

Q: What benchmark result exists for the Arc B390?

A: The Arc B390 has a single recorded result in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Arc B390 has a boost clock of 2500 MHz, which is 35.1% higher than the Arc 130V's 1850 MHz boost clock.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile wins in efficiency-sensitive scenarios. Its 37 W TDP is less than half of the B390's 80 W, making it the appropriate choice for compact portable devices where thermal and power budgets are tight. The 130V also has more TMUs and ROPs per shading unit, with 56 TMUs and 28 ROPs versus the B390's 48 TMUs and 24 ROPs. This gives the 130V a 16.7% advantage in both texture units and raster operations units, which can benefit certain fill-rate-limited workloads despite its lower clock speed. The 130V's smaller die size of 172 mm², while not directly comparable since the B390's die size is unknown, indicates a more compact implementation.

The Intel Arc B390 wins in raw compute performance. Its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 figure more than doubles the 130V's 3.315 TFLOPS. The B390's FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS is 131.7% higher than the 130V's 6.630 TFLOPS. The B390's boost clock advantage of 35.1% and its 71.4% more shading units drive these gains. The B390 also has 12 ray tracing cores versus 7, which gives it 71.4% more RT compute capacity. Its pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s both lead the 130V by 15.8%.

The B390's single benchmark result confirms its position relative to older discrete GPUs. Its 1482 Steel Nomad score places it ahead of the GeForce GT 520MX by 1.3%, the GeForce 800M by 1.5%, the GeForce GT 625 OEM by 2.5%, and the GeForce GT 710 by 2.7%. These are modest margins, however, and the 9th percentile ranking indicates that the B390 sits at the lower end of the overall GPU performance distribution. The 130V has no comparable benchmark data, so its real-world standing cannot be quantified from the database.

For gaming workloads, the B390's higher FP32 and FP16 throughput suggests better performance in shader-heavy scenes, while its larger RT core count points to stronger ray tracing capability. The 130V's higher TMU and ROP counts relative to its shader array may help in texture-heavy or rasterization-bound scenarios, but its lower absolute throughput limits its ceiling. The B390's higher power draw is the trade-off for this performance, and the 130V's lower power draw is its primary advantage in mobile deployments. The database shows two parts designed for different points in the mobile GPU spectrum, with the B390 as the performance leader and the 130V as the efficiency pick.