Intel Arc 140V Mobile vs Intel Arc Pro B390 Comparison

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile and Intel Arc Pro B390 are both integrated graphics processors from Intel, but they belong to different architectural generations and are built on different underlying chips. The Arc 140V Mobile is part of the Lunar Lake chip, using the Xe2-LPG architecture, while the Arc Pro B390 comes from the Panther Lake chip, using the newer Xe3-LPG architecture. Both are manufactured on a 3 nm process, though the Arc 140V Mobile uses TSMC as the foundry, while the Arc Pro B390 uses Intel's own fabrication.

The Arc 140V Mobile has a die size of 172 mm², while the Arc Pro B390's die size is listed as unknown. Both parts have unknown transistor counts. The Arc 140V Mobile is part of the Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) generation, and the Arc Pro B390 belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. Their production status is Active for both, with release dates of September 2024 for the Arc 140V Mobile and January 2026 for the Arc Pro B390.

Core configurations differ substantially. The Arc 140V Mobile contains 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations units. The Arc Pro B390 offers 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operations units. This means the Arc Pro B390 has 50% more shading units, but the Arc 140V Mobile has more TMUs and ROPs. The ray tracing core counts also differ: the Arc 140V Mobile has 8 RT cores, while the Arc Pro B390 has 12 RT cores, a 50% increase.

Clock speeds show significant differences. Both parts have a base clock of 300 MHz. The boost clock for the Arc 140V Mobile is 1950 MHz, while the Arc Pro B390 boosts to 2500 MHz. That is a 550 MHz higher boost clock for the Arc Pro B390, which contributes to its higher compute throughput.

Memory architecture is identical in structure: both use System Shared memory, with System Shared type, System Shared bus width, and System Dependent bandwidth. Neither part has dedicated VRAM, so performance relies on the host system's memory configuration.

Compute rates are notably different. The Arc 140V Mobile delivers 3.994 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 7.987 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (with a 2:1 ratio). The Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16. That makes the Arc Pro B390 roughly 92% ahead in FP32 and FP16 throughput. Pixel rate for the Arc 140V Mobile is 62.40 GPixel/s, while the Arc Pro B390 reaches 60.00 GPixel/s, meaning the Arc 140V Mobile is slightly ahead in pixel fill rate. Texture rate favors the Arc 140V Mobile as well: 124.8 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s for the Arc Pro B390.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The Arc 140V Mobile has a TDP of 37 W, while the Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W. The Arc Pro B390 consumes more than double the power. Both are integrated graphics parts with an IGP slot width and IGP bus interface. The Arc 140V Mobile has no power connectors listed, and the Arc Pro B390 explicitly lists "None" for power connectors. Display outputs for both are Portable Device Dependent.

API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither part lists tensor cores. The predecessor for the Arc 140V Mobile is HD Graphics-M, while the Arc Pro B390's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM. Neither part has a listed successor or launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

Benchmark results indicate that neither part has recorded head-to-head benchmark scores in the database, and both have zero wins in the wins counter. The average benchmark score for both is 0, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. This means the database currently lacks direct performance measurements for these two integrated graphics solutions. However, the recorded specifications permit a clear theoretical split in use cases.

The Arc 140V Mobile wins in pixel fill rate and texture fill rate. With 62.40 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s, it exceeds the Arc Pro B390's 60.00 GPixel/s and 120.0 GTexel/s. This suggests the Arc 140V Mobile is better suited to workloads that emphasize rasterization throughput per clock, particularly at lower resolutions where fill rate limits performance. Its 32 ROPs and 64 TMUs give it an advantage in traditional rendering paths.

The Arc Pro B390 wins decisively in compute throughput. Its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with 1536 shading units and 12 RT cores, make it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks such as ray tracing, shader complexity, and FP16 workloads. The higher boost clock of 2500 MHz reinforces this advantage. For applications that scale with shading unit count and clock speed, the Arc Pro B390 should deliver markedly better results.

The power envelope separates these parts into different deployment scenarios. The Arc 140V Mobile, at 37 W TDP, suits thin and light portable devices where thermal and power budgets are constrained. The Arc Pro B390, at 80 W TDP, can only appear in larger chassis with more substantial cooling and power delivery. The Arc 140V Mobile's lower power draw makes it viable for devices where sustained GPU load is intermittent, while the Arc Pro B390 demands a platform designed for continuous high power draw.

Architecture generation also matters. The Arc 140V Mobile uses Xe2-LPG from the Lunar Lake chip, while the Arc Pro B390 uses Xe3-LPG from the Panther Lake chip. The newer Xe3-LPG architecture in the Arc Pro B390 likely brings efficiency and feature improvements, though the database does not record specific architectural efficiency metrics. The Arc Pro B390's foundry is Intel, whereas the Arc 140V Mobile uses TSMC, which may affect manufacturing characteristics but not directly measurable performance from the provided data.

Neither part has tensor cores, so AI acceleration via dedicated tensor hardware is absent from both. Any machine learning workloads would rely on the general-purpose shading units and FP16 compute. The Arc Pro B390's higher FP16 throughput gives it an edge in such workloads if software can leverage FP16 arithmetic.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear trade-off between the two parts. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile offers higher fill rates and a dramatically lower 37 W TDP, making it the appropriate choice for portable devices where power consumption dictates design. Its 1024 shading units and 8 RT cores are modest but sufficient for lighter graphics loads, and its pixel and texture throughput are actually superior to the Arc Pro B390.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 is the higher-performance part in raw compute terms. With 1536 shading units, 12 RT cores, and 7.680 TFLOPS FP32, it delivers roughly double the compute throughput of the Arc 140V Mobile. Its 80 W TDP reflects this capability, but it also confines it to larger, more power-tolerant platforms. The 2500 MHz boost clock gives it a frequency advantage that the Arc 140V Mobile cannot match.

For users who prioritize compute performance, ray tracing capability, and FP16 throughput, the Arc Pro B390 is the only logical choice based on recorded data. For users who prioritize fill rate efficiency and power economy, the Arc 140V Mobile holds the advantage. The database shows no head-to-head benchmark wins for either part, and both rank at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, so real-world performance remains unverified in these records.

The choice depends entirely on the target platform and workload. A portable device with a 37 W thermal budget cannot accommodate the Arc Pro B390. A workstation-class laptop with an 80 W GPU budget would be wasting the Arc 140V Mobile's efficiency advantages. Neither part is objectively superior across all metrics; the Arc 140V Mobile wins in fill rates and power, the Arc Pro B390 wins in shading units, RT cores, clock speed, and compute throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 1536 shading units, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile has 1024 shading units.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two parts?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile has a TDP of 37 W, and the Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W, a difference of 43 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a boost clock of 2500 MHz, compared to 1950 MHz for the Intel Arc 140V Mobile.

Q: Are these GPUs discrete or integrated?

A: Both are integrated graphics processors with an IGP slot width and IGP bus interface, using System Shared memory.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 12 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile has 8 ray tracing cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark scores for the Intel Arc 140V Mobile versus the Intel Arc Pro B390. Both have zero wins in the wins counter, and both have an average benchmark score of 0. This absence of direct measurements means the following analysis relies strictly on the recorded specification data.

The largest compute advantage belongs to the Arc Pro B390. Its FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS is 92.4% higher than the Arc 140V Mobile's 3.994 TFLOPS. In FP16, the Arc Pro B390 delivers 15.36 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS, again a 92.4% advantage. This is the single biggest performance gap in the entire comparison. The Arc Pro B390's 1536 shading units provide a 50% increase over the Arc 140V Mobile's 1024 shading units, and its 12 RT cores represent a 50% increase over 8 RT cores.

The Arc 140V Mobile holds a smaller but real advantage in fill rates. Its pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s exceeds the Arc Pro B390's 60.00 GPixel/s by 4%. Its texture rate of 124.8 GTexel/s exceeds the Arc Pro B390's 120.0 GTexel/s by 4% as well. These advantages come from having 64 TMUs versus 48 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus 24 ROPs, despite the lower clock speed.

The boost clock difference is 28.2% in favor of the Arc Pro B390: 2500 MHz versus 1950 MHz. This clock advantage compounds with the higher shading unit count to produce the large FP32 gap. However, the Arc 140V Mobile's higher TMU and ROP counts partially compensate for its lower clock, which explains why its fill rates remain competitive.

Power efficiency, when expressed as FP32 per watt, favors the Arc 140V Mobile. At 37 W TDP, it delivers 3.994 TFLOPS, which is 107.9 GFLOPS per watt. The Arc Pro B390 at 80 W TDP delivers 7.680 TFLOPS, which is 96.0 GFLOPS per watt. The Arc 140V Mobile is approximately 12.4% more efficient in FP32 per watt, despite having far lower absolute performance.

Both parts use System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, so memory performance cannot be compared from the recorded data. Neither has a listed launch MSRP, so no price-based comparison is possible. Both are Active in production status, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, indicating they are mid-pack relative to the full GPU landscape.

The release dates show a significant gap: the Arc 140V Mobile launched in September 2024, while the Arc Pro B390 launched in January 2026. The Arc Pro B390 is the newer part by roughly 16 months, which aligns with its newer Xe3-LPG architecture and Panther Lake chip. The Arc 140V Mobile uses the older Xe2-LPG architecture on the Lunar Lake chip.

Texture and pixel rate advantages for the Arc 140V Mobile are modest but consistent. The 4% lead in both metrics suggests that in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as low-resolution rasterization with heavy overdraw, the Arc 140V Mobile could match or slightly exceed the Arc Pro B390. The Arc Pro B390's advantages in shading units, RT cores, and clock speed would dominate in compute-bound and ray-traced workloads.

The absence of tensor cores in both parts means no dedicated AI acceleration hardware. The Arc Pro B390's higher FP16 throughput gives it a theoretical edge in FP16-based inference, but the database does not record any specific AI benchmark results.

The 50th percentile ranking for both GPUs against all GPUs is identical, but this percentile is based on an average benchmark score of 0 for both, so it carries no comparative information. The wins counters at 0 for both confirm that no direct benchmark victories are recorded.

In summary, the recorded data shows the Arc Pro B390 as the compute leader by a wide margin, with the Arc 140V Mobile leading in fill rate efficiency and power efficiency. The head-to-head comparison is currently specification-based rather than benchmark-based, and the numbers indicate that the Arc Pro B390 is the stronger overall performer for compute-heavy tasks, while the Arc 140V Mobile is the more power-efficient part with better rasterization throughput per watt.