Intel Arc B370 vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

The Intel Arc B370 and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU are both integrated graphics solutions from Intel, but they are designed for different platforms and performance tiers. The recorded data shows a clear performance separation between the two, driven by fundamental differences in their execution resources, clock speeds, and underlying chip architectures. This analysis relies solely on the database measurements and specifications to detail where each part stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The primary benchmark in the database is the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, which provides a direct comparison of the two GPUs under a modern DirectX 12 workload. The Intel Arc B370 scored 1184 points, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU scored 733 points. This yields a delta of 61.5% in favor of the Arc B370, a substantial margin that places the two parts in different performance categories.

To contextualize the Arc B370’s score, the database lists its nearest rivals. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scored 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370, indicating a near-identical performance level. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scored 1190, a 0.5% advantage over the Arc B370. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scored 1192, a 0.7% lead. Conversely, the AMD FirePro M2000 scored 1168, which is 1.4% lower than the Arc B370. These figures show that the Arc B370 sits in a tight performance cluster, essentially matching these older discrete GPUs, with differences of less than one percent in either direction.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, by contrast, finds its nearest rivals at a much lower performance level. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU both scored 733, exactly matching the 64EU’s score, with a delta of 0%. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scored 723, which is 1.4% lower than the 64EU. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scored 751, which is 2.4% higher than the 64EU. This indicates that the 64EU is also part of a tight performance cluster, but one that sits far below the Arc B370’s level.

The head-to-head data confirms a single win for the Arc B370, with no wins for the Arc Graphics 64EU in the recorded tests. The performance gap is not marginal; it is a decisive 61.5% advantage. In practical terms, the Arc B370 delivers a significantly higher frame rate in this specific 3DMark scenario, while the 64EU operates at a level that is closer to entry-level discrete GPUs from over a decade ago.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share the Xe-LPG architecture, but they are implemented in different chips and for different market segments. The Intel Arc B370 is based on the Panther Lake chip, which is part of the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is based on the Arrow Lake-S chip, belonging to the Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake) generation. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: Intel fabricates the Panther Lake chip, while TSMC fabricates the Arrow Lake-S chip.

The most significant architectural difference is in the execution resources. The Arc B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 20 raster operation units (ROPs). The Arc Graphics 64EU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the Arc B370 has 2.5 times as many shading units, 1.25 times as many TMUs, and 1.25 times as many ROPs as the 64EU. The shading unit count is the primary driver of the performance gap, as it directly scales the compute throughput.

The Arc B370 also includes 10 ray tracing cores, while the Arc Graphics 64EU has no dedicated ray tracing cores listed in the database. This is a notable feature difference, as the Arc B370 can accelerate ray-traced workloads, whereas the 64EU relies on the base Xe-LPG pipeline for any ray tracing effects. The absence of this hardware in the 64EU limits its ability to handle such workloads efficiently.

Clock speeds further separate the two. The Arc B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The Arc Graphics 64EU also has a base clock of 300 MHz, but its boost clock is 1900 MHz. The 500 MHz difference in boost clock, combined with the higher shading unit count, amplifies the compute advantage of the Arc B370. The pixel rate for the Arc B370 is 48.00 GPixel/s, while the 64EU achieves 30.40 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s for the Arc B370 versus 60.80 GTexel/s for the 64EU.

The floating-point performance, measured in FP32, is 6.144 TFLOPS for the Arc B370 and 1.946 TFLOPS for the 64EU. This is a 3.16 times difference in raw compute. In FP16, the Arc B370 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1), while the 64EU delivers 3.891 TFLOPS (2:1). The memory subsystem for both is described as “System Shared,” meaning they use the host system’s memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bus width and bandwidth are also listed as “System Shared” and “System Dependent,” respectively, indicating that memory performance is tied to the platform.

The Arc Graphics 64EU has additional data on its physical characteristics. It is part of a chip with 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 73.3M per mm². The Arc B370 does not have transistor or die size data in the database, so no comparison can be made on those points. The power draw differs as well: the Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W, while the Arc Graphics 64EU has a TDP of 65 W. This is counterintuitive given the Arc B370’s higher performance, but it reflects the different design goals, with the Arc B370 aimed at a more power-efficient integrated solution.

The bus interface also differs. The Arc B370 uses an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) interface, while the Arc Graphics 64EU uses a Ring Bus interface. This indicates different integration methods on their respective chips. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. Display outputs are dependent on the platform: the Arc B370 is described as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the 64EU is “Motherboard Dependent,” reflecting their target devices.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a single test, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, and the Intel Arc B370 wins it outright with a 61.5% higher score. There are no recorded wins for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU in any benchmark. However, the architecture data suggests where each part is intended to function effectively.

The Arc B370, with its 1280 shading units, 10 ray tracing cores, and 2400 MHz boost clock, is suited for tasks that demand higher compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 6.144 TFLOPS and FP16 rate of 12.29 TFLOPS indicate it can handle more complex 3D rendering, including effects that use ray tracing. The 25 W TDP makes it suitable for a portable device, as indicated by its display output description, where power efficiency is critical. Its performance level, matching the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770, suggests it can run older or lighter 3D games at playable framerates, though the database does not provide specific game tests.

The Arc Graphics 64EU, with 512 shading units and no ray tracing cores, is more limited in its compute capabilities. Its FP32 rate of 1.946 TFLOPS and FP16 rate of 3.891 TFLOPS place it at a lower tier. The 65 W TDP is higher, but this likely reflects the demands of the Arrow Lake-S desktop platform, where the GPU shares power with the CPU. Its performance matches the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU exactly, indicating that the 64EU is at the upper end of a low-performance spectrum. It is best suited for basic graphics output, video playback, and light 2D workloads, rather than intensive 3D rendering.

The ray tracing cores are a clear differentiator. The Arc B370 has 10 of them, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing in supported games and applications. The Arc Graphics 64EU has none, so any ray tracing workload would need to be processed through software or not at all, which would severely impact performance. This makes the Arc B370 the only one of the two that can realistically handle ray-traced content.

The boost clock difference of 500 MHz also matters in bursty workloads where the GPU can ramp up to its maximum frequency. The Arc B370’s higher boost clock allows it to complete short tasks faster, while the 64EU’s lower clock limits its peak throughput. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s for the Arc B370 versus 30.40 GPixel/s for the 64EU means the former can fill the screen faster, which is relevant for high-resolution displays.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc B370 than the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU in the recorded benchmark?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scored 1184 points in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU scored 733 points. This is a 61.5% higher score for the Arc B370.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has 1280 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has 512 shading units. This is a 2.5 times difference in favor of the Arc B370.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU have ray tracing cores?

A: No. The database lists 10 ray tracing cores for the Intel Arc B370, but none for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has a boost clock of 2400 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has a boost clock of 1900 MHz. The Arc B370 is 500 MHz higher.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute rate?

A: The Intel Arc B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS in FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU delivers 1.946 TFLOPS. The Arc B370 is roughly 3.16 times faster in this metric.

Q: How do their power draws compare?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has a TDP of 65 W. The Arc B370 consumes less power despite higher performance.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The Intel Arc B370 is the stronger GPU by a wide margin, with a 61.5% higher benchmark score, more than double the shading units, a higher boost clock, and dedicated ray tracing cores. Its performance level, matching the ATI Radeon HD 5770 and similar parts, makes it a more capable solution for 3D workloads. The 25 W TDP further indicates it is designed for efficiency, suitable for portable devices where power is limited.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is a more modest part. Its 733 score places it alongside the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU, all sharing the same performance level. With no ray tracing cores and a lower FP32 rate, it is suited for basic graphics tasks. The 65 W TDP suggests it is part of a larger desktop chip, where the GPU is not the primary power consumer.

For a user selecting between these two, the choice is straightforward based on the recorded data. The Intel Arc B370 is the pick for any workload that involves 3D rendering, ray tracing, or higher frame rates. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is adequate for non-intensive graphics, such as desktop composition and video output, but it cannot match the Arc B370’s compute capabilities. The benchmark results confirm that the Arc B370 is in a different performance tier, and the architecture specs reinforce this separation.