Intel Arc A530M vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two recorded benchmark results for the Intel Arc A530M, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 currently has no recorded benchmark scores. This asymmetry makes a direct head-to-head comparison incomplete, but the available data still allows for meaningful analysis of where each GPU stands relative to the broader market.

The Intel Arc A530M achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 49,735 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 43,492. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 46,614. The Intel Arc Pro B370, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0, indicating that no benchmark data has been captured for this part yet. This absence of data is itself a notable finding, as it suggests the B370 is either newly released or has not been subjected to standardized testing in the database.

The A530M's average score places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs tracked in the database. This is a strong showing for a mobile-oriented discrete GPU. The nearest rivals in the database provide useful context: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 46,601, which is nearly identical to the A530M's 46,614, representing a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M scores 46,702, putting it 0.2% ahead of the A530M. Two NVIDIA workstation parts round out the comparison group: the RTX A2000 scores 46,043, which is 1.2% behind the A530M, and the RTX 5880 Ada Generation scores 45,972, which is 1.4% behind.

These narrow margins indicate that the A530M sits in a tightly contested performance band. The differences between the A530M and its nearest rivals are all within 1.4%, meaning benchmark-to-benchmark variance could easily shuffle the ordering. The A530M's OpenCL score is notably higher than its Vulkan score, suggesting that the GPU's compute-oriented workloads may see stronger performance than its graphics rendering workloads, at least under these specific test conditions.

Since the B370 has no benchmark scores, the head-to-head comparison must rely on architectural and specification differences rather than direct performance measurements. The data shows that the B370's FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS is significantly higher than the A530M's 3.994 TFLOPS, a difference of roughly 54%. Similarly, the B370's FP16 throughput of 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) exceeds the A530M's 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1) by about 54% as well. These raw compute figures suggest that the B370 could deliver substantially higher shader-bound performance, even though its pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are lower than the A530M's 62.40 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A530M wins in several specification categories that matter for traditional rasterization workloads. Its pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s outpaces the B370's 48.00 GPixel/s by 30%. Its texture rate of 124.8 GTexel/s exceeds the B370's 96.00 GTexel/s by 30% as well. The A530M also has a larger memory footprint at 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6, with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The B370 uses system-shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as "System Dependent," meaning it has no dedicated video memory and relies on the host system's memory subsystem. This architectural difference gives the A530M a clear advantage in scenarios where dedicated VRAM bandwidth is critical, such as high-resolution texture streaming or large framebuffer workloads.

The A530M also has more shading units (1,536 versus 1,280), more texture mapping units (96 versus 40), more raster output units (48 versus 20), and more ray tracing cores (12 versus 10). These counts suggest the A530M has a wider execution pipeline, even though its clock speeds are lower. The A530M boosts to 1,300 MHz, while the B370 boosts to 2,400 MHz. The B370's higher boost clock partially compensates for its narrower pipeline, which is reflected in its higher FP32 throughput.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins in raw compute throughput and power efficiency. Its FP32 figure of 6.144 TFLOPS is 54% higher than the A530M's 3.994 TFLOPS. Its FP16 figure of 12.29 TFLOPS is 54% higher than the A530M's 7.987 TFLOPS. These numbers indicate that the B370 is designed for compute-heavy applications where shader throughput is the limiting factor. The B370 also has a dramatically lower TDP of 25 W versus the A530M's 65 W. This 40 W difference means the B370 can sustain high compute performance in thermally constrained environments, such as thin-and-light laptops or fanless designs, where the A530M would require more substantial cooling.

The B370's base clock of 300 MHz is very low, but its boost clock of 2,400 MHz is nearly double the A530M's boost. This wide clock range suggests the B370 is designed to scale aggressively under load while idling at very low power. The B370 also uses the Xe3-LPG architecture, compared to the A530M's Xe-HPG, and is built on Intel's 3 nm process node, compared to the A530M's TSMC 6 nm node. The process advantage likely contributes to the B370's higher clock speeds and lower power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The Intel Arc A530M is based on the DG2-256 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist generation specifically the Arc 5 Mobile tier. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture, belonging to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. This generational gap spans multiple architectural revisions, with Xe3-LPG representing a significant evolution over Xe-HPG.

The process node difference is substantial. The A530M is fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process, while the B370 is fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. The A530M packs 11,500 million transistors into a 269 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 42.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The B370's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, making a direct density comparison impossible. However, the shift to a 3 nm process typically enables higher density and better power efficiency, which aligns with the B370's lower TDP and higher boost clock.

The A530M's memory subsystem uses dedicated GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The B370 uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, and its bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent." This fundamental difference affects how each GPU accesses data. The A530M can rely on consistent, high-bandwidth local memory, while the B370's performance depends on the host system's memory configuration, which can vary widely between platforms.

Both GPUs support identical API feature sets, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This parity means software compatibility is not a differentiator between the two parts. The B370 has a predecessor listed as "HD Graphics-WM," while the A530M has no predecessor or successor listed in the database.

The bus interface also differs. The A530M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which provides a dedicated connection to the host. The B370's bus interface is listed as "IGP," indicating it is an integrated graphics processor that communicates through the system's internal fabric rather than an external expansion bus. This reinforces the B370's positioning as an integrated solution, while the A530M functions as a discrete mobile GPU.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The A530M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The B370 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. The A530M has more of every execution resource, but the B370 compensates with higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The A530M runs at a 900 MHz base and 1,300 MHz boost. The B370 runs at a 300 MHz base and 2,400 MHz boost. The B370's boost clock is 84.6% higher than the A530M's boost, which explains how a GPU with fewer execution units can achieve higher FP32 throughput.

Memory configuration is another major differentiator. The A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The B370 has system-shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system-dependent. The A530M's dedicated VRAM provides predictable performance, while the B370's shared memory approach reduces cost and complexity but introduces variability.

Power consumption differs by 40 W. The A530M has a TDP of 65 W, while the B370 is rated at 25 W. The A530M has no power connectors listed, while the B370 lists "None" for power connectors, which is consistent with its integrated nature. Both GPUs use an IGP slot width, indicating they are not discrete add-in cards. The A530M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the B370 uses an IGP bus interface. Both have display outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

The process node and foundry differ: the A530M uses TSMC's 6 nm process with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, while the B370 uses Intel's 3 nm process with unknown transistor count and die size. The A530M's transistor density is 42.8 million per mm², a figure not available for the B370. Release dates also differ: the A530M was released on 2023-07-31, while the B370 is dated 2026-01-26. The B370 has a predecessor named "HD Graphics-WM," while the A530M has none listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has significantly higher FP32 and FP16 throughput. Its FP32 figure is 6.144 TFLOPS versus the A530M's 3.994 TFLOPS, and its FP16 figure is 12.29 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS. Both figures represent a roughly 54% advantage for the B370.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A530M have a benchmark score advantage?

A: Yes, the A530M has recorded benchmark data: 49,735 in Geekbench OpenCL, 43,492 in Geekbench Vulkan, and an average score of 46,614. The B370 has no recorded benchmark scores, with an average score of 0.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The A530M uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The B370 uses system-shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as "System Dependent," meaning it relies on the host system's memory rather than dedicated VRAM.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The A530M has a TDP of 65 W, while the B370 is rated at 25 W. This 40 W difference positions the B370 for more power-constrained environments.

Q: Which GPU has more execution resources?

A: The A530M has more shading units (1,536 versus 1,280), more texture mapping units (96 versus 40), more raster output units (48 versus 20), and more ray tracing cores (12 versus 10).

Q: Are there architectural generation differences?

A: Yes, the A530M uses the Xe-HPG architecture on TSMC's 6 nm process, while the B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on Intel's 3 nm process. The B370's boost clock of 2,400 MHz is nearly double the A530M's 1,300 MHz boost.

The Verdict

The data presents two GPUs with fundamentally different design priorities. The Intel Arc A530M is a discrete mobile GPU with dedicated VRAM, broader execution resources, and recorded benchmark performance that places it in the 85th percentile of all tracked GPUs. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and RX 6550M, sit within 0.2% of its average score, indicating the A530M competes effectively in its performance class. The A530M's dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for graphics workloads that benefit from consistent memory throughput.

The Intel Arc Pro B370, on the other hand, is an integrated GPU with no recorded benchmarks. Its architectural advantages are clear from the specification data: higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, a much higher boost clock, a newer 3 nm process, and a TDP of just 25 W. These characteristics point toward a GPU designed for compute efficiency in power-constrained systems. The B370's lack of dedicated VRAM means its real-world performance will depend heavily on the host platform's memory subsystem, which introduces uncertainty that the A530M does not face.

For users prioritizing established, measurable graphics performance with dedicated memory, the A530M has the advantage according to the database. For workloads that demand high FP32 compute within a strict power envelope, the B370's specification sheet suggests it could deliver superior throughput, though no benchmark data currently confirms this. The B370's integrated nature and system-shared memory make it best suited for platforms where an external GPU is not an option, while the A530M's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and discrete design cater to systems that can accommodate a dedicated mobile GPU. The absence of B370 benchmark scores is a significant gap; until testing data is recorded, the A530M remains the only one of the two with verified performance in the database.