Intel Arc 140T Mobile vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

The Intel Arc 140T Mobile and NVIDIA B200 SXM6 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, yet the recorded data places both at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database. The B200 SXM6 delivers a massive FP32 throughput advantage of 69.34 TFLOPS against the Arc 140T Mobile’s 4.813 TFLOPS, a 14.4x gap. Conversely, the Arc 140T Mobile operates at a 35 W TDP versus 1000 W for the B200 SXM6, showing a 28.6x difference in power draw. These two parts share a TSMC 5 nm process node, but their architectures, memory systems, and intended deployment could not be more distinct.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products, and neither item lists an average benchmark score. However, the raw specification data provides a clear quantitative comparison across multiple compute metrics. The largest single advantage for the B200 SXM6 appears in FP32 performance: 69.34 TFLOPS versus 4.813 TFLOPS, a 14.4x margin. This gap reflects the B200’s 18,944 shading units against the Arc 140T’s 1,024 shading units, an 18.5x difference in shader count. The B200 also leads in texture rate at 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 150.4 GTexel/s, a 7.2x advantage. Pixel rate is the one classic rasterization metric where the Arc 140T wins outright: 75.20 GPixel/s versus 43.92 GPixel/s, a 1.7x lead for the Intel part. This occurs because the Arc 140T has 32 ROPs compared to 24 ROPs on the B200, combined with a higher boost clock of 2350 MHz versus 1830 MHz.

FP16 performance shows a different relationship. The B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not double throughput for FP16. The Arc 140T Mobile delivers 9.626 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, implying its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. In absolute terms, the B200 still leads FP16 by 7.2x, but the Intel part’s FP16 advantage over its own FP32 is proportionally larger.

Memory bandwidth presents another decisive B200 win. The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, achieving 8.19 TB/s. The Arc 140T Mobile uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as “System Dependent,” so no comparable fixed number exists. Texture units favor the B200 at 592 versus 64, an 9.25x margin. Tensor cores exist only on the B200 at 592; the Arc 140T lists null tensor cores. Ray tracing cores exist only on the Arc 140T at 8; the B200 lists null RT cores.

Clock speeds show the Arc 140T with a 300 MHz base and 2350 MHz boost, while the B200 runs a 120 MHz base and 1830 MHz boost. The Intel part’s boost clock is 28.4% higher. The B200’s lower base clock likely reflects its server power envelope, but the boost clock still trails the Arc 140T by 520 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The Arc 140T Mobile uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture built on the Arrow Lake-H chip, manufactured on a 5 nm TSMC process. This is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a bus interface of “IGP” and a slot width of “IGP.” Its memory is entirely system shared, both in size, type, and bus width. The B200 SXM6 uses the Blackwell architecture on the GB100 chip, also on a 5 nm TSMC process, but with a die size of 1628 mm² and 208,000 million transistors. The transistor density for the B200 is listed as 127.8M / mm², while the Arc 140T has unknown transistor count and die size. The B200 is a discrete accelerator in an SXM Module form factor with a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface.

Shader organization differs substantially. The Arc 140T has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The B200 lacks dedicated RT cores, while the Arc 140T lacks tensor cores. The Arc 140T supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no consumer graphics API support. Display outputs on the Arc 140T are “Portable Device Dependent,” while the B200 has no outputs.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The Arc 140T’s memory clock is listed as “System Shared,” and its bandwidth is “System Dependent.” The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e with a memory clock of 2000 MHz and 8 Gbps effective, on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 8.19 TB/s. The B200’s FP16 to FP32 ratio is 1:1, while the Arc 140T uses 2:1. The B200’s pixel rate is lower than its texture rate proportionally because it has only 24 ROPs versus 592 TMUs. The Arc 140T has more ROPs than the B200 despite having far fewer total execution resources.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc 140T Mobile wins in pixel fill rate and ray tracing capability. Its 75.20 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the B200’s 43.92 GPixel/s by 71.2%. For workloads that rely on rasterized pixel output, such as traditional game rendering on integrated graphics, the Arc 140T has the measured advantage. The 8 RT cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature the B200 does not list. The Arc 140T also consumes far less power at 35 W versus 1000 W, making it suitable for portable devices where power budgets are constrained. Its higher boost clock of 2350 MHz suggests responsiveness in burst workloads relative to the B200’s 1830 MHz boost.

The B200 SXM6 wins in every throughput-oriented metric. FP32 compute is 14.4x higher. Texture rate is 7.2x higher. FP16 compute is 7.2x higher. Memory capacity is fixed at 180 GB versus system shared, and bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus system dependent. The B200 has 592 tensor cores, providing dedicated matrix math acceleration that the Arc 140T lacks entirely. The B200’s 18,944 shading units allow massive parallel workloads. Its 592 TMUs support heavy texture sampling. The B200 also lists a suggested PSU of 1400 W, indicating a deployment environment built around high-power server infrastructure. Its predecessor is Server Hopper and successor is Server Rubin, confirming its lineage in data center accelerators. The Arc 140T’s predecessor is HD Graphics-M, placing it in the integrated graphics line.

Neither part has benchmark scores in the database, so the wins are derived from specification comparisons. The Arc 140T’s pixel rate win and RT core presence make it the choice for graphics-oriented tasks on mobile hardware. The B200’s compute, memory, and tensor capabilities make it the choice for large-scale parallel processing, AI inference, and training workloads where pixel output is irrelevant.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS, making the B200 14.4x faster in this metric.

Q: Does the Intel Arc 140T Mobile support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc 140T Mobile lists 8 RT cores. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 lists null RT cores.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The Arc 140T Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 592 tensor cores. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile lists null tensor cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Arc 140T Mobile has a 35 W TDP, while the B200 SXM6 has a 1000 W TDP. The B200 also lists a suggested PSU of 1400 W.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded field. The Arc 140T uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture on the Arrow Lake-H chip, while the B200 uses Blackwell on the GB100 chip. Both use 5 nm TSMC process nodes. The B200 has 208,000 million transistors and a 1628 mm² die size, while the Arc 140T has unknown values for both. Transistor density for the B200 is 127.8M / mm²; the Arc 140T has no density figure.

Clock speeds: Arc 140T base 300 MHz, boost 2350 MHz; B200 base 120 MHz, boost 1830 MHz. Memory: Arc 140T system shared, system dependent bandwidth; B200 180 GB HBM3e, 8192-bit bus, 8.19 TB/s, 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective. Shading units: 1,024 versus 18,944. TMUs: 64 versus 592. ROPs: 32 versus 24. RT cores: 8 versus null. Tensor cores: null versus 592. Pixel rate: 75.20 GPixel/s versus 43.92 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 150.4 GTexel/s versus 1,083.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.813 TFLOPS versus 69.34 TFLOPS. FP16: 9.626 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP: 35 W versus 1000 W. Slot width: IGP versus SXM Module. Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus no outputs. APIs: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 versus N/A for all three. Suggested PSU: null versus 1400 W. Release date: 2025-01-12 versus 2024-10-31. Predecessor: HD Graphics-M versus Server Hopper. Successor: null versus Server Rubin. Launch MSRP: the B200 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD; the Arc 140T has none listed.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. For portable, graphics-centric computing, the Intel Arc 140T Mobile is the only viable option because it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, includes 8 RT cores, and provides display outputs. Its 35 W TDP fits integrated mobile designs. Its pixel rate of 75.20 GPixel/s exceeds the B200’s 43.92 GPixel/s, giving it the rasterization edge.

For server-scale compute, the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 dominates. Its 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, 69.34 TFLOPS FP16, 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth, 180 GB HBM3e capacity, and 592 tensor cores target high-performance parallel workloads. The B200 has 18,944 shading units and 592 TMUs, far exceeding the Arc 140T’s resources. It lacks graphics APIs and display outputs, confirming its role as an accelerator rather than a graphics card. Its 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU indicate a data center environment.

The Arc 140T’s 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs are modest by comparison, but its 32 ROPs and higher boost clock allow it to win the pixel rate comparison. The B200’s 24 ROPs limit its pixel throughput despite its massive compute capability. Users seeking ray tracing, graphics API support, and low power consumption should select the Arc 140T. Users needing maximum FP32/FP16 throughput, tensor operations, and high-bandwidth memory should select the B200 SXM6. The two products do not compete for the same workloads; the specification data confirms they serve separate markets entirely.