Intel Arc B370 vs NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the performance gap between the Intel Arc B370 and the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC?

A: The recorded data shows a massive divide. The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12), placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369831 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it in the 100th percentile. The B300 leads the Arc B370 by roughly 312 times in their respective benchmark measurements.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between these two products?

A: The Intel Arc B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process from Intel, with 1280 shading units and 10 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC uses the Blackwell Ultra architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, with 18944 shading units and 592 tensor cores. The B300 also has 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, while the Arc B370's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Intel Arc B370 uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The B300's memory clock is rated at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the Arc B370's memory clock is listed as "System Shared."

Q: What are the power and physical form factor differences?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has a 25 W TDP, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of "IGP," and uses no power connectors. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has a 1100 W TDP, uses an SXM Module slot width, and requires a suggested PSU of 1500 W. The Arc B370 is a portable device dependent display output, while the B300 has no display outputs at all.

Q: Which product supports which APIs?

A: The Intel Arc B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC lists "N/A" for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for consumer graphics API workloads. The B300's focus is compute, as shown by its Geekbench OpenCL score.

Q: What are the release dates and production statuses?

A: The Intel Arc B370 was released on 2026-01-26 and is marked as Active. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC was released on 2025-09-10 and is also Active. The B300's predecessor is listed as "Server Hopper" and its successor as "Server Rubin," while the Arc B370 has no listed predecessor or successor.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc B370 and NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The Arc B370 is built on Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation, using a 3 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It features 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. The architecture is designed for low power integration, evidenced by its 25 W TDP and IGP form factor. Its FP32 compute is rated at 6.144 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 12.29 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC uses the Blackwell Ultra architecture, part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, built on a 5 nm process from TSMC. It has 18944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The chip, designated GB110, contains 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². Its FP32 and FP16 compute are both rated at 76.99 TFLOPS, with a 1:1 ratio for FP16. The architecture is clearly optimized for massive parallel compute workloads, not traditional graphics rendering.

The process node difference is notable: Intel's 3 nm node versus TSMC's 5 nm node. While the Arc B370 uses a denser process, the B300 compensates with an enormous die and transistor budget. The Arc B370 lacks tensor cores entirely, with that field listed as null, while the B300 has 592 dedicated tensor cores. The ray tracing cores also differ: the Arc B370 has 10, while the B300's RT core count is not listed in the data. The B300's API support is marked as N/A for graphics APIs, reinforcing its server compute positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database's head-to-head benchmark section is empty, so the comparison relies on each product's individual recorded scores. The Intel Arc B370's sole benchmark is 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12, scoring 1184. This places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in this test are ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, delta -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, delta -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, delta -0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, delta +1.4%). The Arc B370 sits essentially level with these older discrete parts, slightly ahead of the FirePro M2000 by 1.4% but behind the Radeon HD 7650M by 0.7%.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC's benchmark is geekbench_opencl, scoring 369831. This puts it in the 100th percentile, the top of the database. Its nearest rivals are NVIDIA B200 (345482, delta +7%), NVIDIA H200 NVL (334891, delta +10.4%), AMD Instinct MI300X (317994, delta +16.3%), and NVIDIA L40S (295763, delta +25%). The B300 leads its closest competitor, the B200, by 7% in OpenCL compute. Against the L40S, it holds a 25% advantage.

The delta percentages reveal distinct performance tiers. The Arc B370's rivals are all separated by less than 2 percentage points, indicating a tightly packed low-performance group. The B300's rivals are separated by 7 to 25 percentage points, showing a clear hierarchy at the top of the compute spectrum. The Arc B370's score of 1184 is dwarfed by the B300's 369831, a factor of roughly 312, though the different benchmark tests (DX12 gaming versus OpenCL compute) make direct comparison approximate.

Specification Differences

The two products differ on nearly every specification field. The process node differs: Intel Arc B370 uses 3 nm, NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC uses 5 nm. The foundry differs: Intel versus TSMC. The B300 has known transistor data (208,000 million) and die size (1628 mm²), while the Arc B370 lists both as unknown.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Arc B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The B300 has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost clock of 2032 MHz. The B300's base clock is over five times higher than the Arc B370's base clock, but the Arc B370's boost clock is higher than the B300's boost clock.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The Arc B370 uses system shared memory with no dedicated size, type, bus width, or bandwidth. The B300 has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth and a 2000 MHz memory clock.

Compute resources show the B300's scale. Shading units: 1280 versus 18944. TMUs: 40 versus 592. ROPs: 20 versus 24. RT cores: 10 versus null (unknown). Tensor cores: null versus 592. Pixel rate: 48.00 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 96.00 GTexel/s versus 1,202.9 GTexel/s. FP32: 6.144 TFLOPS versus 76.99 TFLOPS. FP16: 12.29 TFLOPS versus 76.99 TFLOPS.

Form factor and power differ drastically. The Arc B370 has a 25 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and an IGP bus interface. The B300 has a 1100 W TDP, SXM Module slot width, a suggested PSU of 1500 W, and a PCIe 6.0 x16 bus interface. Display outputs: the Arc B370 is portable device dependent, the B300 has no outputs.

API support also differs: the Arc B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B300 lists N/A for all three. Release dates: the Arc B370 launched 2026-01-26, the B300 launched 2025-09-10.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc B370 wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is a fraction of the B300's 1100 W, making it suitable for portable devices with no dedicated power connectors. It supports standard graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling consumer gaming and rendering workloads. Its boost clock of 2400 MHz exceeds the B300's 2032 MHz boost, and its pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s is nearly identical to the B300's 48.77 GPixel/s despite the massive compute gap. The Arc B370's 3 nm process also represents a more advanced manufacturing node.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC wins decisively in raw compute and memory capacity. Its 76.99 TFLOPS FP32 is over 12 times the Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. Its 288 GB of HBM3e memory with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is an order of magnitude beyond what the Arc B370 can access via system shared memory. The B300's 18944 shading units and 592 tensor cores are designed for AI and high-performance compute workloads. Its 100th percentile ranking versus the Arc B370's 5th percentile shows the performance chasm. The B300 also leads in texture rate by over 12 times (1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s).

The Arc B370's nearest rivals are all older ATI and AMD parts from the HD 5000 and 7000 series, with scores within 1.4% of each other. This places it in a legacy performance bracket. The B300's nearest rivals are current server accelerators like the B200, H200 NVL, and MI300X, with the B300 leading them all by 7% to 25%. The data shows the Arc B370 competes in an entirely different performance class.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates two products with no meaningful overlap in purpose or performance. The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated GPU with a 25 W TDP, system shared memory, and support for consumer graphics APIs. Its 1184 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad places it at the 5th percentile, roughly on par with ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and AMD Radeon HD 7650M. It suits low-power portable devices that need basic graphics acceleration and modern API support.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is a server compute module with 1100 W TDP, 288 GB HBM3e, and no display outputs. Its 369831 Geekbench OpenCL score places it at the 100th percentile, leading the NVIDIA B200 by 7% and the AMD Instinct MI300X by 16.3%. The B300 is built for massive parallel compute, AI inference, and scientific workloads, not for rendering to a screen.

The choice between them depends entirely on the workload. For a portable device requiring graphics output and low power consumption, the Arc B370 is the only viable option in this comparison. For a server needing maximum compute throughput and memory bandwidth, the B300 SXM6 AC delivers performance that the Arc B370 cannot approach. The data shows no scenario where these two products compete directly; they serve separate markets with separate requirements. The Arc B370's 25 W TDP and IGP form factor make it a component for compact systems, while the B300's 1100 W TDP and SXM module design require a data center chassis with a 1500 W suggested PSU.