Intel Arc A350M vs Intel Arc B570 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data places these two Intel Arc parts in entirely different performance classes. The Intel Arc B570 dominates the available head-to-head results, winning both recorded benchmarks decisively. The gap is not marginal; it is a structural difference in compute capability.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A350M scores 24,546 points. The Intel Arc B570 scores 83,514 points. That is a 70.6% advantage for the B570. The OpenCL test measures general compute throughput, and the B570’s result is more than three times higher. The delta percentage is negative from the A350M’s perspective, indicating the A350M trails by that margin.

The Vulkan test shows an even wider divide. The A350M records 24,747 points, while the B570 reaches 96,844 points. The B570 leads by 74.4%. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API, and the B570’s advantage here suggests its rendering pipeline is substantially more efficient. The A350M’s two scores are nearly identical across OpenCL and Vulkan, at 24,546 and 24,747 respectively. This consistency implies the A350M is hitting a hardware ceiling rather than being limited by driver overhead or API-specific bottlenecks.

The B570, by contrast, shows a notable spread between its two results. Its Vulkan score of 96,844 is 13,330 points higher than its OpenCL score of 83,514. This suggests the B570’s architecture extracts more performance from Vulkan’s explicit execution model, likely due to its newer Xe2-HPG design. The A350M’s Xe-HPG architecture does not show this same API sensitivity.

When placed against the broader database, the A350M sits in the 70th percentile of all GPUs. The B570 sits in the 65th percentile. Despite the B570’s overwhelming head-to-head wins, its percentile ranking is lower because the database includes many high-end desktop parts that outclass it. The A350M’s higher percentile reflects its position among mobile integrated-class parts, where competition is thinner.

The wins tally is straightforward: the A350M records zero wins, while the B570 records two. There is no benchmark in the shared set where the A350M comes out ahead. The closest the A350M gets is in relative terms, where its OpenCL deficit of 70.6% is slightly smaller than its Vulkan deficit of 74.4%. Both are decisive losses.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Arc B570 wins every measurable category. There is no workload in the shared test set where the A350M takes the lead. The B570’s advantage is consistent across both compute and graphics-oriented tests.

For general compute tasks, such as those measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the B570 is the clear choice. Its 83,514 score versus the A350M’s 24,546 represents a 70.6% lead. This translates to faster data processing, better physics simulations, and more responsive compute shaders. Users running GPU-accelerated applications that rely on OpenCL will see the B570 complete workloads in roughly one-third of the time.

For graphics-heavy applications using Vulkan, the B570 is even more dominant. Its 96,844 score versus 24,747 is a 74.4% advantage. This affects real-time rendering, game performance, and any workload that uses Vulkan’s explicit multi-threading capabilities. The B570’s render output and texture processing rates are dramatically higher, which directly impacts frame rates and visual fidelity.

The A350M’s only notable strength is its efficiency profile. With a 25 W TDP, it draws far less power than the B570’s 150 W TDP. The database does not include wattage comparisons, but the TDP figures are recorded. The A350M is an integrated-class part, meaning it is designed for thin-and-light laptops where power envelopes are tight. The B570 is a dual-slot discrete card requiring a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU.

For users on portable devices, the A350M is the only viable option between the two. The B570’s physical dimensions, 272 mm in length and 115 mm in height, do not fit in portable form factors. The A350M’s slot width is listed as IGP, indicating it is designed to be integrated onto the motherboard. The B570 is a full expansion card.

For desktop users with adequate power delivery and chassis space, the B570 is superior in every recorded performance metric. There is no benchmark result in the database where the A350M outperforms it.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different generations of Intel’s graphics architecture. The A350M uses the Xe-HPG architecture, built on the DG2-128 chip. The B570 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, built on the BMG-G21 chip. The B570’s predecessor is listed as Alchemist, which is the architecture family the A350M belongs to.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The A350M is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The B570 uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node allows the B570 to pack more transistors into its die. The A350M contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The B570 contains 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, with a density of 72.1 million per square millimeter. The B570 has 2.7 times more transistors and a 53.7% higher density.

The core configurations are vastly different. The A350M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The B570 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. That is three times the shading units, three times the TMUs, and more than three times the ROPs. The B570 also has 18 ray tracing cores compared to the A350M’s 6, a threefold increase.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The B570 has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s. The B570’s memory bandwidth is 3.4 times higher. Its memory clock runs at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), versus the A350M’s 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds also favor the B570. The A350M has a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The B570 runs at 2500 MHz for both base and boost, meaning it sustains its maximum frequency under load. The B570’s boost clock is 13.6% higher than the A350M’s.

The performance output reflects these architectural differences. The A350M’s pixel rate is 52.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s. The B570’s pixel rate is 200.0 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 360.0 GTexel/s. The B570 is 3.8 times faster in pixel fill and 3.4 times faster in texture fill. FP32 compute is 3.379 TFLOPS for the A350M versus 11.52 TFLOPS for the B570, a 3.4 times difference. FP16 compute is 6.758 TFLOPS versus 23.04 TFLOPS, also a 3.4 times difference.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The A350M’s display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the B570 has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc B570 than the A350M in OpenCL?

A: The B570 scores 83,514 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the A350M scores 24,546. The B570 leads by 70.6%.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The B570 has 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth from its 10 GB GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus. The A350M has 112.0 GB/s from 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Are these GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: No. The A350M is in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, while the B570 is in the 65th percentile. The B570 wins head-to-head but faces tougher competition in the broader database.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The A350M has 7,200 million transistors, while the B570 has 19,600 million. The B570 contains 2.7 times more transistors.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The B570 has a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The A350M has a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The B570 also runs its base clock at 2500 MHz, equal to its boost.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc A350M | Intel Arc B570 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Xe2-HPG |

| Chip | DG2-128 | BMG-G21 |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) | Battlemage (Arc 5) |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1150 MHz | 2500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 2500 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 10 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 380.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 48 | 144 |

| ROPs | 24 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 6 | 18 |

| Pixel Rate | 52.80 GPixel/s | 200.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 105.6 GTexel/s | 360.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.379 TFLOPS | 11.52 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) | 23.04 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Length | None | 272 mm (10.7 inches) |

| Height | None | 115 mm (4.5 inches) |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2022-03-29 | 2025-01-15 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 219 USD |

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion for performance: the Intel Arc B570 is the superior GPU. It wins both recorded benchmarks by margins of 70.6% and 74.4%. It has three times the shading units, three times the ray tracing cores, and 3.4 times the memory bandwidth. Its FP32 compute is 3.4 times higher. Its pixel rate is 3.8 times higher. Every architectural metric favors the B570.

The A350M’s only advantages are its power draw and physical form factor. At 25 W TDP, it consumes one-sixth of the B570’s 150 W TDP. It is an integrated part, requiring no power connector and fitting into portable devices. The B570 is a dual-slot card requiring an 8-pin connector and a 450 W PSU.

Users should pick the A350M only if their system is a thin-and-light laptop with no room for a discrete card. The A350M’s end-of-life status and lower performance make it unsuitable for demanding workloads. Its 70th percentile ranking is respectable for its class, but its class is fundamentally limited.

Users with a desktop chassis and adequate power supply should pick the B570 without hesitation. It is an active product with a launch MSRP of 219 USD. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, which it edges by 0.1%, and the Intel Arc A750, which it trails by 0.1%. These near-parity results place it in solid mid-range territory. The B570’s 65th percentile reflects stiff competition, but in direct comparison with the A350M, it is the only rational choice for performance. The A350M never wins a single recorded benchmark, and no workload in the shared data favors it.