Intel Arc B370 vs Intel Arc Pro B390 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core specifications of the Intel Arc B370?

A: The Intel Arc B370 uses the Panther Lake chip, based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process. It has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 render output units, and 10 ray tracing cores. Its base clock is 300 MHz with a boost clock of 2400 MHz.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Pro B390 differ in compute resources?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390, also on Panther Lake and Xe3-LPG with a 3 nm process, provides 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Its base clock is 300 MHz, and the boost clock reaches 2500 MHz.

Q: What are the memory configurations for these two GPUs?

A: Both the Intel Arc B370 and the Intel Arc Pro B390 use System Shared memory. The memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as System Shared or System Dependent. Neither has dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU shows a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s, while the Intel Arc B370 achieves 48.00 GPixel/s. The Pro B390 also delivers a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s for the B370.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W. Both are integrated graphics processors with no power connectors and a slot width of IGP.

Q: Are there benchmark scores available for both GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has one recorded benchmark: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, placing it at the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Arc Pro B390 currently has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: they use the Panther Lake chip, the Xe3-LPG architecture, and a 3 nm process node from Intel. They also share identical API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The display outputs for both are listed as Portable Device Dependent, and both use an IGP bus interface.

The primary architectural difference lies in the generation labels. The Intel Arc B370 belongs to Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake), while the Intel Arc Pro B390 belongs to Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake). This distinction indicates the B390 is positioned as a workstation-oriented variant, whereas the B370 targets mobile graphics. The B390 also lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-WM, while the B370 has no predecessor recorded.

The internal execution resources scale up in the B390. The B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The B390 increases these to 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Ray tracing core counts follow suit: 10 on the B370 versus 12 on the B390. These increases translate directly into higher raw throughput metrics. The B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, while the B390 reaches 7.680 TFLOPS FP32. FP16 performance scales from 12.29 TFLOPS on the B370 to 15.36 TFLOPS on the B390, both at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32.

Clock behavior also differs. Both start at a 300 MHz base, but the B390 boosts to 2500 MHz, 100 MHz higher than the B370's 2400 MHz boost. The combination of more units and a higher boost clock explains the B390's performance advantages on paper.

Power delivery differs significantly. The B370 is rated at 25 W TDP, while the B390 is rated at 80 W TDP. Both are integrated designs with no power connectors and IGP slot width, which means the power is drawn from the host system rather than external sources.

Both GPUs have unknown transistor counts, die sizes, and transistor density figures. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database. Their release dates are identical: 2026-01-26.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear separation between these two parts. The Intel Arc B370 is a low-power integrated solution with a 25 W TDP, a 2400 MHz boost clock, and 1280 shading units. Its only benchmark score is 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which places it at the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals in the database include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 (0.2% ahead), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192 (0.7% ahead). The B370 leads the AMD FirePro M2000 by 1.4%, which scores 1168.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 has no recorded benchmarks and no nearest rivals, so its real-world performance cannot be directly compared from the database. Its specifications, however, indicate a substantially larger compute configuration: 20% more shading units, 20% more TMUs, 20% more ROPs, and 20% more ray tracing cores than the B370. Its FP32 throughput is 25% higher, and its pixel rate is 25% higher. The boost clock is 4.2% higher.

The B390's 80 W TDP is more than three times the B370's 25 W TDP. That power budget enables the higher clock rate and larger execution resource pool. For a purchaser choosing between these two, the B370 suits scenarios where power consumption is the dominant constraint and the workload matches the modest compute capability implied by its 5th percentile ranking. The B390, despite lacking benchmark data, offers a materially larger compute envelope on paper, which should translate to higher throughput for graphics or compute workloads that scale with shading units, texture units, and ray tracing cores.

The B390's workstation-oriented generation label, Arc Graphics-WM, and its predecessor listing of HD Graphics-WM further indicate a professional positioning. The B370's generation label, Arc Graphics-M, aligns with a general mobile integrated graphics role. Neither has a launch MSRP, so no price-based differentiation is available in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc B370 | Intel Arc Pro B390 |

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

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) | Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 2500 MHz |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 40 | 48 |

| ROPs | 20 | 24 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 10 | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 48.00 GPixel/s | 60.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 96.00 GTexel/s | 120.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 6.144 TFLOPS | 7.680 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) | 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 80 W |

| Predecessor | None listed | HD Graphics-WM |

| Benchmark Score | 1184 (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12) | None recorded |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 5 | 50 |

The two GPUs share identical specifications in several areas: architecture (Xe3-LPG), chip (Panther Lake), process node (3 nm), foundry (Intel), memory configuration (System Shared), bus interface (IGP), slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), production status (Active), and release date (2026-01-26). Neither lists a launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc B370 and the Intel Arc Pro B390. The wins count is zero for both. The B390 has no recorded scores, so no direct comparison of measured performance is possible.

The B370's sole benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, returns a score of 1184. Its nearest rivals in the database provide context: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher; the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher; the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher; and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which the B370 leads by 1.4%. These deltas are all within roughly one and a half percent, indicating the B370 sits in a tight performance cluster around the 1180 to 1190 score range.

For the B390, the absence of benchmarks means its nearest rivals list is empty and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0. Its percentile of 50 among all GPUs is recorded, but without a score, this percentile cannot be interpreted against measured data.

Given the specification differences, the B390 should outperform the B370 based on raw throughput metrics. The B390's FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS is 25% higher than the B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s is 25% higher than 48.00 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s is 25% higher than 96.00 GTexel/s. The B390 also has 20% more shading units, 20% more TMUs, 20% more ROPs, and 20% more ray tracing cores. The boost clock advantage is smaller: 2500 MHz versus 2400 MHz, a 4.2% increase.

The B390's 80 W TDP compared to the B370's 25 W TDP represents a 220% increase in power budget. This power allocation is consistent with the larger execution resources and higher clock rate. The data does not show how this power increase translates into sustained performance, as no benchmark results exist for the B390. The B370's measured score of 1184, at the 5th percentile, suggests it operates at the low end of the GPU performance spectrum. The B390's specifications place it in a clearly higher performance class on paper, but the database cannot quantify that advantage without recorded measurements.