Intel Arc A310E vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Intel Arc A310E and Intel Arc Pro B370 occupy very different positions in the recorded database, even though both carry the Intel Arc name. The A310E is a discrete, end-of-life Alchemist part built for low-profile systems, while the Pro B370 is an active integrated graphics processor from the Panther Lake generation. The benchmark records for both are empty, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. With no measured scores and no rival comparisons on file, the analysis below relies entirely on the architectural and specification data recorded for each part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results for this pairing. The wins counter shows zero for both the Intel Arc A310E and the Intel Arc Pro B370. Neither part has an average benchmark score recorded, and neither has a list of nearest rivals. This absence of measured data means the comparison must be drawn from the recorded specifications, clock behavior, and architectural differences rather than from performance tests.

What the data does show is a substantial gap in raw compute capacity. The Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, exactly double the 3.072 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A310E. The same doubling appears in FP16 work, where the Pro B370 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS while the A310E reaches 6.144 TFLOPS. Both parts use a 2:1 ratio for FP16 to FP32, so the proportional advantage remains constant across both precisions.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The Pro B370 renders 96.00 GTexel/s, while the A310E renders 64.00 GTexel/s, a 50% advantage for the integrated part. Pixel rate favors the Pro B370 as well, with 48.00 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s. Those figures come directly from the higher shading unit count, texture mapping unit count, and render output unit count on the Pro B370.

Clock behavior tells a more complicated story. The A310E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost, which gives it a stable operating point. The Pro B370 has a base clock of only 300 MHz but boosts to 2400 MHz. That is a 200 MHz higher boost ceiling than the A310E, but the very low base clock suggests the integrated part will spend much of its time at reduced speeds depending on thermal and power constraints of the host system. The A310E can rely on its full clock rate at all times, while the Pro B370 depends on boost conditions to reach its peak.

Memory is where the two parts diverge most sharply. The A310E has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The Pro B370 has no dedicated memory at all; it uses system shared memory, with the bus width listed as system shared and bandwidth marked as system dependent. The discrete card has a fixed, known memory pipeline, while the integrated part has a variable one that depends entirely on the host platform.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 records 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, exactly twice the 3.072 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A310E.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A310E have dedicated memory?

A: Yes. The A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus with 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the thermal design power of each part?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP and is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a 25 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors and no suggested PSU recorded.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The Pro B370 boosts to 2400 MHz, while the A310E is fixed at 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The Pro B370 also has a 300 MHz base clock, much lower than the A310E base of 2000 MHz.

Q: Which part has more shading units?

A: The Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 render output units, and 10 ray tracing cores. The A310E has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 6 ray tracing cores.

Q: Are both parts DirectX 12 Ultimate compatible?

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

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310E wins in areas tied to having its own memory subsystem. With 4 GB of GDDR6 and a fixed 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, it offers a predictable memory environment that does not depend on the host system. Its 64 bit bus is narrow, but it is a dedicated pipeline. The A310E also has a consistent 2000 MHz clock at both base and boost, so performance does not hinge on boosting behavior. It is a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it a straightforward discrete option for systems that need fixed display outputs and a known power draw of 75 W.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins in raw compute throughput. Its 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 figure is double that of the A310E, and its 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are both higher. It has 1280 shading units versus 768, 40 texture mapping units versus 32, 20 render output units versus 16, and 10 ray tracing cores versus 6. The boost clock of 2400 MHz is also higher than the A310E maximum. The Pro B370 uses just 25 W, which is one third of the A310E TDP, and it is an integrated part with no power connectors and no slot width, so it fits into any system that supports the Panther Lake platform.

The memory situation favors the A310E in predictability but not in capacity. The Pro B370 can access as much system memory as the host provides, but the bandwidth is system dependent. The A310E is capped at 4 GB but that memory is always available at 124.0 GB/s. For workloads that need guaranteed local memory bandwidth, the A310E has the advantage. For workloads that scale with compute throughput and can use system memory, the Pro B370 has the advantage.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every major specification category. The A310E uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture from the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. The Pro B370 uses the Panther Lake chip on the Xe3-LPG architecture from the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. The A310E is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The Pro B370 is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown.

The A310E has a fixed 2000 MHz base and boost clock and dedicated 1937 MHz GDDR6 memory at 15.5 Gbps effective. The Pro B370 has a 300 MHz base clock, a 2400 MHz boost clock, and system shared memory. The A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. The Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 RT cores.

The A310E is a single-slot discrete card measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, a suggested 250 W PSU, a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, and four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The Pro B370 is an IGP with a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, an IGP bus interface, portable device dependent display outputs, and no dimensions recorded.

The A310E is end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage. The Pro B370 is active, released on 2026-01-26, with a predecessor of HD Graphics-WM and no successor recorded. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectures represent two different design philosophies. The A310E uses Xe-HPG, Intel's discrete GPU architecture from the Alchemist generation. It is built on a 6 nm TSMC process and uses a dedicated 7,200 million transistor chip with a 157 mm² die size. The Pro B370 uses Xe3-LPG, a low-power integrated architecture from the Panther Lake generation, built on a 3 nm Intel process. The transistor density for the A310E is recorded at 45.9M per mm², while no density figure exists for the Pro B370.

The shading architecture differs in scale. The A310E has 768 shading units organized with 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The Pro B370 has 1280 shading units with 40 TMUs and 20 ROPs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so feature-level API support is identical even though the underlying architectures differ.

Ray tracing hardware also scales. The A310E has 6 RT cores, while the Pro B370 has 10 RT cores. The pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s on the A310E versus 48.00 GPixel/s on the Pro B370 reflects both the ROP count difference and the clock behavior.

Memory architecture is the largest divide. The A310E is a discrete design with its own 64 bit GDDR6 bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro B370 is an integrated design that shares system memory, with no fixed bus width or bandwidth figure. This is not a minor tweak; it changes how each part behaves under memory pressure. The A310E has a hard cap of 4 GB but a stable pipeline. The Pro B370 can use more memory but has no guaranteed bandwidth.

The power envelope differs by a factor of three. The A310E consumes 75 W and requires a 250 W PSU suggestion. The Pro B370 consumes 25 W and has no PSU suggestion because it is integrated. The A310E is a physical card with dimensions and a single-slot footprint. The Pro B370 has no dimensions, no slot width, and its display outputs are portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two different buyers. The Intel Arc A310E suits systems that need a discrete, single-slot card with fixed memory bandwidth and a consistent 2000 MHz clock. Its 4 GB GDDR6 and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth are known quantities, and its 75 W TDP with no power connectors makes installation simple. It is end-of-life, but the database still lists it with a successor in Battlemage, indicating a clear product lineage.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 suits integrated platforms built around Panther Lake. It delivers double the FP32 compute at 6.144 TFLOPS, a higher 2400 MHz boost clock, more shading units, more texture units, more ROPs, and more ray tracing cores, all within a 25 W envelope. The tradeoff is memory: system shared with system dependent bandwidth. That makes its performance contingent on the host platform in a way the A310E never faces.

For compute-bound work that fits within system memory constraints, the Pro B370 has the clear specification advantage. For memory-bound work that needs a dedicated, predictable memory pipeline, the A310E has the advantage. The absence of benchmark data means neither part can claim a measured performance lead in the database. The 50th percentile ranking for both parts is identical, and with no average scores or rival comparisons recorded, the specification sheet is the only evidence available. The A310E is a finished, discrete product with fixed characteristics. The Pro B370 is an active, integrated product whose real-world behavior depends heavily on the system around it.