Intel Arc 140V Mobile vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc 140V Mobile or the Intel Arc Pro B370. Both parts show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. This absence of measured data means any direct performance comparison must be derived from the architectural specifications rather than from empirical results.

What the recorded data does show is that both GPUs occupy the 50th percentile among all GPUs tracked in the database. This places them at the median of the performance distribution, though the percentile figure does not account for the substantial differences in their compute configurations. Without benchmark scores, the FP32 throughput figures serve as the primary quantitative comparison point.

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile delivers 3.994 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. That represents a 53.8% advantage for the Arc Pro B370 in raw floating-point throughput. In FP16 with 2:1 ratio, the Arc 140V Mobile reaches 7.987 TFLOPS, while the Arc Pro B370 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS, a similarly large gap of approximately 53.9%. These figures indicate that the Arc Pro B370 holds a clear compute advantage across both precision formats.

The texture and pixel rate comparisons tell a different story. The Arc 140V Mobile produces 124.8 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, while the Arc Pro B370 produces 96.00 GTexel/s, giving the Arc 140V Mobile a 30.0% lead in texture throughput. In pixel rate, the Arc 140V Mobile reaches 62.40 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s for the Arc Pro B370, a 30.0% advantage as well. These rasterization-focused metrics favor the smaller GPU, which is notable given its lower shading unit count.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The Arc 140V Mobile boosts to 1950 MHz, while the Arc Pro B370 boosts to 2400 MHz, a 23.1% higher boost clock. Both parts share a 300 MHz base clock. The higher boost clock on the Arc Pro B370 partially explains its FP32 advantage, but the difference in shading unit count is the primary driver. The Arc 140V Mobile has 1024 shading units, while the Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, a 25.0% increase.

The memory subsystem is classified as System Shared for both GPUs, with bus width and total memory size also marked as System Shared. Memory bandwidth for both is listed as System Dependent, meaning the database does not assign fixed bandwidth figures. This makes direct memory performance comparison impossible from the available data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile uses the Xe2-LPG architecture and is built on the Lunar Lake chip. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture and is built on the Panther Lake chip. This generational difference explains several of the specification changes between the two parts.

Both GPUs are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but they use different foundries. The Arc 140V Mobile is produced by TSMC, while the Arc Pro B370 is produced by Intel. The die size for the Arc 140V Mobile is recorded as 172 mm², while the die size for the Arc Pro B370 is unknown. Transistor counts are listed as unknown for both, so no density comparison is possible.

The shading unit configuration differs markedly. The Arc 140V Mobile has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation units. The Arc Pro B370 carries 25.0% more shading units but 37.5% fewer TMUs and 37.5% fewer ROPs. This distribution suggests the Arc Pro B370 is optimized for compute-heavy workloads, while the Arc 140V Mobile retains a more balanced rasterization pipeline.

Ray tracing hardware follows a similar pattern. The Arc 140V Mobile includes 8 ray tracing cores, while the Arc Pro B370 includes 10 ray tracing cores, a 25.0% increase. Neither GPU has recorded tensor core counts in the database.

The power envelopes differ substantially. The Arc 140V Mobile has a TDP of 37 W, while the Arc Pro B370 has a TDP of 25 W. That means the Arc 140V Mobile draws 48.0% more power according to the TDP figures, despite delivering less FP32 compute. The efficiency comparison favors the Arc Pro B370, which achieves 0.2458 TFLOPS per watt versus 0.1079 TFLOPS per watt for the Arc 140V Mobile.

Both GPUs are integrated parts with an IGP slot width and IGP bus interface. The power connector field is empty for the Arc 140V Mobile and listed as None for the Arc Pro B370. Neither part requires external power connectors. Display outputs are listed as Portable Device Dependent for both, indicating that the output configuration depends on the host device.

The API support is identical. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status for both is Active, meaning neither has been discontinued.

Release dates differ by roughly 16 months. The Arc 140V Mobile was released on September 23, 2024, while the Arc Pro B370 was released on January 26, 2026. The predecessor fields list HD Graphics-M for the Arc 140V Mobile and HD Graphics-WM for the Arc Pro B370. Neither GPU has a recorded successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile delivers 3.994 TFLOPS. The Arc Pro B370 leads by approximately 53.8% in this metric.

Q: Which GPU has the higher texture fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile produces 124.8 GTexel/s, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 produces 96.00 GTexel/s. The Arc 140V Mobile leads by 30.0% in texture throughput.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile boosts to 1950 MHz, and the Intel Arc Pro B370 boosts to 2400 MHz. The Arc Pro B370 has a 23.1% higher boost clock, while both share a 300 MHz base clock.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile has a TDP of 37 W, and the Intel Arc Pro B370 has a TDP of 25 W. The Arc 140V Mobile draws 48.0% more power according to TDP figures.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the Intel Arc 140V Mobile and the Intel Arc Pro B370 support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Are these discrete or integrated GPUs?

A: Both are integrated GPUs. Each has an IGP slot width and IGP bus interface, and both rely on System Shared memory rather than dedicated VRAM.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two distinct design priorities. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is the compute-oriented part, delivering 53.8% more FP32 throughput and 53.9% more FP16 throughput than the Arc 140V Mobile. It also carries 25.0% more shading units and 25.0% more ray tracing cores, along with a 23.1% higher boost clock. The efficiency data reinforces this position: the Arc Pro B370 produces 0.2458 TFLOPS per watt compared to 0.1079 TFLOPS per watt for the Arc 140V Mobile, all while operating at a 25 W TDP versus 37 W.

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile holds advantages in the rasterization pipeline. Its 30.0% higher texture fill rate and 30.0% higher pixel rate suggest it is better suited for traditional rendering workloads that depend on texture sampling and pixel output. The higher TDP of 37 W indicates the Arc 140V Mobile is allowed to consume more power to sustain these rates, though the exact relationship between power draw and clock behavior is not fully specified in the database.

The memory situation is identical in classification, with both GPUs using System Shared memory and System Dependent bandwidth. This means the host system's memory configuration determines actual memory performance for both, and neither part has a fixed memory advantage in the recorded data.

The architecture difference is significant. Xe2-LPG on Lunar Lake versus Xe3-LPG on Panther Lake represents a generational leap for the Arc Pro B370, and the 3 nm process from Intel Foundry contrasts with the 3 nm process from TSMC used for the Arc 140V Mobile. The die size of 172 mm² for the Arc 140V Mobile is recorded, while the Arc Pro B370's die size remains unknown, preventing a direct area efficiency comparison.

For users prioritizing compute throughput, ray tracing capability, or power efficiency, the recorded specifications point to the Intel Arc Pro B370. Its higher shading unit count, faster boost clock, and lower TDP make it the stronger choice on paper for FP32 and FP16 workloads. For users prioritizing texture-heavy rendering or pixel output, the Intel Arc 140V Mobile offers superior fill rates despite its lower compute ceiling.

Neither GPU has recorded benchmark scores in the database, so these conclusions rest entirely on architectural specifications. The absence of measured performance data leaves room for real-world behavior to differ from what the specifications suggest, particularly in areas like driver efficiency and memory bandwidth scaling, which are not captured in the recorded figures.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Arc 140V Mobile and the Intel Arc Pro B370:

• Architecture: Xe2-LPG versus Xe3-LPG
• Chip: Lunar Lake versus Panther Lake
• Generation: Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) versus Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake)
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Die Size: 172 mm² versus unknown
• Boost Clock: 1950 MHz versus 2400 MHz
• Shading Units: 1024 versus 1280
• Texture Mapping Units: 64 versus 40
• Raster Operation Units: 32 versus 20
• Ray Tracing Cores: 8 versus 10
• Pixel Rate: 62.40 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 124.8 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 3.994 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 7.987 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS
• TDP: 37 W versus 25 W
• Power Connectors: empty versus None
• Release Date: September 23, 2024 versus January 26, 2026
• Predecessor: HD Graphics-M versus HD Graphics-WM

All other recorded fields are identical, including base clock (300 MHz), memory configuration (System Shared), API support, slot width (IGP), bus interface (IGP), display outputs, production status (Active), and the absence of a launch MSRP.