Intel Arc 130V Mobile vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Arc 130V Mobile and the Intel Arc Pro B370 contains no direct comparative benchmark scores. Neither GPU has an average benchmark score entered in the database, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. Both products sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, indicating that on the aggregate percentile scale, they are positioned identically relative to the broader GPU landscape. This lack of measured scores means that any head-to-head comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences listed in the database, rather than on performance deltas from benchmark runs.

The most significant numerical discrepancy between the two parts appears in raw compute throughput. The Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile achieves 3.315 TFLOPS. That places the Pro B370 at approximately 85% ahead of the 130V Mobile in FP32 compute. The FP16 figures follow the same pattern: the Pro B370 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, versus 6.630 TFLOPS for the 130V Mobile. These are the only direct numerical comparisons where one part clearly outpaces the other by a substantial margin.

In terms of pixel processing, the 130V Mobile actually holds the advantage. The 130V Mobile records a pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s, while the Pro B370 sits at 48.00 GPixel/s. That is a difference of roughly 8% in favor of the 130V Mobile. Similarly, the texture rate for the 130V Mobile is 103.6 GTexel/s, compared to 96.00 GTexel/s for the Pro B370, placing the 130V Mobile about 8% higher in texture throughput. These wins for the 130V Mobile are modest but consistent, and they stem directly from the differing counts of texture mapping units and raster operation units.

The shading unit count strongly favors the Pro B370. The Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, while the 130V Mobile has 896. That is a 384-unit difference, or roughly 43% more shading units on the Pro B370. The ray tracing core count also favors the Pro B370, with 10 RT cores versus 7 on the 130V Mobile, a 43% increase as well. The TMU and ROP counts, however, favor the 130V Mobile: it has 56 TMUs and 28 ROPs, while the Pro B370 has 40 TMUs and 20 ROPs. So the 130V Mobile has 40% more TMUs and 40% more ROPs than the Pro B370.

Clock speeds differ notably. The base clock for both parts is identical at 300 MHz. The boost clock, however, is substantially higher on the Pro B370 at 2400 MHz, versus 1850 MHz on the 130V Mobile. That represents a 550 MHz advantage, or about 30% higher boost on the Pro B370. The higher boost clock, combined with the larger shader array, explains why the Pro B370 achieves nearly double the FP32 throughput despite having fewer TMUs and ROPs.

The thermal design power figures run counter to the compute advantage. The 130V Mobile is rated at 37 W, while the Pro B370 is rated at 25 W. That means the Pro B370 delivers its higher compute throughput at a 12 W lower TDP, a 32% reduction in power draw relative to the 130V Mobile. Neither part uses external power connectors, and both are integrated graphics processors with an IGP slot width.

Both GPUs share the same memory configuration in the database: system shared memory, system shared type, system shared bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. There is no numerical memory capacity or bandwidth figure to compare, as both rely entirely on the host system's memory subsystem. The API support is identical as well: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for both parts.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Arc Pro B370 is the stronger compute part. It offers roughly 85% higher FP32 throughput and nearly double the FP16 throughput compared to the Intel Arc 130V Mobile, while also drawing less power at 25 W versus 37 W. The Pro B370 also has 384 more shading units and 3 additional RT cores. For workloads that rely on raw shader compute, ray tracing, or FP32/FP16 math, the data clearly points to the Pro B370 as the higher-performing option.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile, however, holds advantages in pixel and texture throughput. Its pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s exceeds the Pro B370's 48.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 103.6 GTexel/s exceeds the Pro B370's 96.00 GTexel/s. With 56 TMUs and 28 ROPs, the 130V Mobile is configured for fill-rate-oriented tasks, such as traditional rasterization at high resolutions or texture-heavy scenes. The Pro B370, with only 40 TMUs and 20 ROPs, appears more compute-centric despite its higher clock speeds.

The release dates in the database place the 130V Mobile as the earlier product, launched in late September 2024, while the Pro B370 launched in late January 2026. Both are listed as Active production status. Neither has a listed launch MSRP, so no pricing comparison is possible from the data. The 130V Mobile uses TSMC as its foundry, while the Pro B370 uses Intel's own foundry, both on a 3 nm process node.

For a system builder or laptop designer prioritizing maximum compute performance per watt, the Pro B370 is the clear choice from the data. For tasks where pixel fill rate and texture throughput matter more than raw shader compute, the 130V Mobile holds a measurable, if smaller, edge. The choice between the two ultimately depends on whether the workload leans toward compute-heavy rendering or fill-rate-bound rasterization. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a split decision based on workload type.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different architecture generations and different product lines. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is built on the Xe2-LPG architecture and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) generation, using the Lunar Lake chip. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture and belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation, built on the Panther Lake chip. This generational gap is the primary architectural distinction, with Xe3-LPG representing a newer design than Xe2-LPG.

The process node is listed as 3 nm for both parts, but the foundries differ. The 130V Mobile is fabricated by TSMC, while the Pro B370 is fabricated by Intel. This is a notable difference in manufacturing source, even though the node size is nominally the same. The die size for the 130V Mobile is recorded as 172 mm², while the die size for the Pro B370 is unknown. Transistor counts are listed as unknown for both, and no transistor density figures are provided.

The architecture differences manifest directly in the execution resources. The Xe3-LPG architecture in the Pro B370 supports 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 RT cores. The Xe2-LPG architecture in the 130V Mobile supports 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, 28 ROPs, and 7 RT cores. This suggests that the Xe3-LPG design allocates more die area to shader compute and ray tracing, while the Xe2-LPG design allocates more to texture and pixel processing. The Xe3-LPG also achieves a higher boost clock of 2400 MHz compared to 1850 MHz on Xe2-LPG, indicating a more aggressive clock profile for the newer architecture.

Neither GPU lists tensor cores in the database, so no AI accelerator comparison is possible. The memory architecture is identical in description: both use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. Both GPUs are integrated parts with an IGP bus interface, meaning they are designed to be embedded in a processor package rather than installed as discrete cards.

The predecessor names differ as well. The 130V Mobile lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor, while the Pro B370 lists HD Graphics-WM. This aligns with the mobile versus workstation-oriented naming convention. Neither part has a listed successor in the database.

Specification Differences

The clock specifications show a clear split. Both parts share a 300 MHz base clock, but the boost clocks diverge significantly: the Pro B370 reaches 2400 MHz, while the 130V Mobile tops out at 1850 MHz. Neither part has a game clock listed. The memory clock is listed as "System Shared" for both, meaning no dedicated memory clock exists for either GPU.

The memory configuration is identical on paper: system shared size, type, bus width, and bandwidth for both. Neither GPU has dedicated VRAM, so all memory parameters depend on the host system. The display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for both, indicating that output capabilities vary by laptop or device implementation.

The shading unit count differs by 384 units, favoring the Pro B370. The TMU count differs by 16 units, favoring the 130V Mobile. The ROP count differs by 8 units, favoring the 130V Mobile. The RT core count differs by 3 cores, favoring the Pro B370. These four counts represent the core execution resource differences between the two parts.

The pixel rate and texture rate both favor the 130V Mobile, as noted earlier. The FP32 and FP16 throughput both favor the Pro B370 by a wide margin. The TDP differs by 12 W, with the Pro B370 at 25 W and the 130V Mobile at 37 W. The power connector field shows "None" for the Pro B370 and null for the 130V Mobile, but since both are IGP parts, neither requires external power connectors.

The API support is identical across all three listed APIs. The production status is "Active" for both. The release dates differ by over a year, with the 130V Mobile launching in September 2024 and the Pro B370 launching in January 2026. The slot width is "IGP" for both, and the bus interface is "IGP" for both.

The process node is 3 nm for both, but the foundry differs: TSMC for the 130V Mobile, Intel for the Pro B370. The die size is known only for the 130V Mobile at 172 mm². No dimensions are listed for either GPU. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 3.315 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc 130V Mobile. That places the Pro B370 roughly 85% ahead in FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the Intel Arc 130V Mobile have any performance advantage over the Pro B370?

A: Yes, the 130V Mobile has a higher pixel rate at 51.80 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s for the Pro B370, and a higher texture rate at 103.6 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. It also has more TMUs and ROPs, with 56 and 28 respectively, compared to 40 and 20 on the Pro B370.

Q: What is the difference in ray tracing core counts?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has 10 RT cores, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile has 7 RT cores. That is a difference of 3 RT cores, or roughly 43% more on the Pro B370.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 is rated at 25 W TDP, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile is rated at 37 W TDP. The Pro B370 consumes 12 W less power despite having higher compute throughput. Neither GPU uses external power connectors.

Q: Are the two GPUs built on the same manufacturing process?

A: Both are listed as 3 nm process nodes, but they use different foundries. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is fabricated by TSMC, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 is fabricated by Intel. The die size for the 130V Mobile is 172 mm², while the die size for the Pro B370 is unknown.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the Intel Arc 130V Mobile and the Intel Arc Pro B370 support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature sets are identical in the database.