Intel Arc B370 vs Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single benchmark result for the Intel Arc B370, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, and no head-to-head benchmark entries exist for this pairing. Consequently, direct numerical comparison between these two parts is not possible from the available data.

The Arc B370's single score places it at the 5th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, as recorded, are older discrete and mobile parts with similar average scores. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 averages 1186, a delta of -0.2% relative to the B370. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 averages 1190, a delta of -0.5%. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M averages 1192, a delta of -0.7%. The AMD FirePro M2000 averages 1168, a delta of 1.4%. These figures indicate that the B370's measured performance sits within a narrow band around these older parts, with the B370 trailing the closest rivals by less than one percent and leading the FirePro M2000 by 1.4%.

Because the Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile lacks any benchmark entries, its performance cannot be quantified relative to the B370 or any other part. The database records its percentile as 50, but this figure is not supported by any average benchmark score, which is listed as 0. The absence of measured data means any performance comparison must rely entirely on architectural and specification differences rather than observed results.

Architecture Differences

The two Intel graphics solutions belong to different generations and use distinct architectures. The Intel Arc B370 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses the older Xe-LPG architecture. The B370 is part of the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation, whereas the 128EU Mobile belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation.

The process nodes differ substantially. The B370 is fabricated on a 3 nm process, while the 128EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel. The B370's chip is codenamed Panther Lake, and the 128EU Mobile's chip is codenamed Meteor Lake.

The B370's architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the 128EU Mobile is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both parts support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The B370 also includes 10 ray tracing cores, whereas the 128EU Mobile has no recorded ray tracing cores. Neither part lists tensor cores.

The bus interface differs as well. The B370 uses an IGP bus interface, while the 128EU Mobile uses a Ring Bus interface. Both parts are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with a slot width of IGP and no power connectors. Display outputs for both are listed as portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has a boost clock of 2400 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has a boost clock of 2250 MHz.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the 128EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has 1280 shading units, compared to 1024 shading units on the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile.

Q: What is the texture fill rate for each GPU?

A: The B370 has a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s, while the 128EU Mobile has a texture rate of 144.0 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc B370 includes 10 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has no recorded ray tracing cores.

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

A: The B370 has a TDP of 25 W, and the 128EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Arc B370 and the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile:

• Architecture: Xe3-LPG for the B370, Xe-LPG for the 128EU Mobile.
• Generation: Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) for the B370, Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) for the 128EU Mobile.
• Process Node: 3 nm for the B370, 10 nm for the 128EU Mobile.
• Base Clock: 300 MHz for both, no difference.
• Boost Clock: 2400 MHz for the B370, 2250 MHz for the 128EU Mobile.
• Shading Units: 1280 for the B370, 1024 for the 128EU Mobile.
• TMUs: 40 for the B370, 64 for the 128EU Mobile.
• ROPs: 20 for the B370, 32 for the 128EU Mobile.
• RT Cores: 10 for the B370, none for the 128EU Mobile.
• Pixel Rate: 48.00 GPixel/s for the B370, 72.00 GPixel/s for the 128EU Mobile.
• Texture Rate: 96.00 GTexel/s for the B370, 144.0 GTexel/s for the 128EU Mobile.
• FP32 Performance: 6.144 TFLOPS for the B370, 4.608 TFLOPS for the 128EU Mobile.
• FP16 Performance: 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) for the B370, 9.216 TFLOPS (2:1) for the 128EU Mobile.
• TDP: 25 W for the B370, 28 W for the 128EU Mobile.
• Bus Interface: IGP for the B370, Ring Bus for the 128EU Mobile.
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the B370, 12 (12_1) for the 128EU Mobile.
• Release Date: 2026-01-26 for the B370, 2023-12-13 for the 128EU Mobile.
• Predecessor: None recorded for the B370, HD Graphics-M for the 128EU Mobile.
• Benchmark Scores: 1184 (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12) for the B370, none for the 128EU Mobile.
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 5 for the B370, 50 for the 128EU Mobile.
• Average Benchmark Score: 1184 for the B370, 0 for the 128EU Mobile.

Fields that are identical include the system shared memory size, type, bus width, and system dependent bandwidth; both have a base clock of 300 MHz; both are Intel products; both have an IGP slot width; both have no power connectors; both have portable device dependent display outputs; both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4; both have a production status of Active; and neither has a recorded launch MSRP, successor, length, height, or width.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the specification data, the Intel Arc B370 wins in several computational areas. Its FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS is 33% higher than the 128EU Mobile's 4.608 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance of 12.29 TFLOPS is 33% higher than the 9.216 TFLOPS. The B370 also has more shading units (1280 vs 1024) and includes 10 ray tracing cores, which the 128EU Mobile lacks entirely. The B370's boost clock is 150 MHz higher, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support provides a more recent feature level. The B370's 3 nm process node is also a generation ahead of the 10 nm node used by the 128EU Mobile.

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile counters with advantages in other areas. Its pixel rate of 72.00 GPixel/s is 50% higher than the B370's 48.00 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 144.0 GTexel/s is 50% higher than the B370's 96.00 GTexel/s. The 128EU Mobile also has more TMUs (64 vs 40) and more ROPs (32 vs 20). Its TDP is 28 W compared to 25 W, which may reflect a different power envelope. The 128EU Mobile also holds a higher recorded percentile (50) versus the B370's 5, though this percentile is not tied to any average benchmark score in the database.

The single benchmark score for the B370, 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, places it at the 5th percentile overall. Its nearest rivals all fall within a 1.4% range of that score, suggesting that the B370's measured performance is comparable to those older parts. The 128EU Mobile has no measured results, so its wins are purely on paper.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split between the two parts. The Intel Arc B370 is the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads, offering higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, more shading units, and ray tracing support. Its 3 nm process and DirectX 12 Ultimate support place it in a newer architectural generation. The B370's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 figure is 33% above the 128EU Mobile's 4.608 TFLOPS, and its 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 figure is likewise 33% higher. The 10 ray tracing cores give it a feature the 128EU Mobile does not have.

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile, despite its lower compute figures, delivers higher rasterization throughput. Its 72.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is 50% higher than the B370's 48.00 GPixel/s, and its 144.0 GTexel/s texture rate is 50% higher. With 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus 40 and 20 respectively, the 128EU Mobile is better equipped for fill-rate-bound tasks. Its 28 W TDP is slightly higher than the B370's 25 W, which may indicate a different power allocation.

Benchmark results do not settle this split. The B370 has one recorded score of 1184, which places it at the 5th percentile and within 1.4% of four older rivals. The 128EU Mobile has no recorded scores, so its 50th percentile ranking is not supported by any measured average. Users requiring measured performance data for the 128EU Mobile will find none in the database.

For workloads that stress shader compute, ray tracing, or modern DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the B370 is the part that matches those requirements. For workloads that depend on pixel and texture fill rates, the 128EU Mobile has the specification-level advantage. The B370's newer process node and higher boost clock support its compute lead, while the 128EU Mobile's larger TMU and ROP counts support its fill-rate lead. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP, so no pricing guidance can be derived from the database. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload is compute-bound or fill-rate-bound, as the available data provides no overlapping benchmark results to indicate overall performance parity or superiority.