Intel Arc B370 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 Comparison

Intel Arc B370 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 occupy very different positions in the hardware landscape. The Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built for portability, while the RTX 4060 AD106 is a dedicated, dual-slot add-in board for desktop systems. The recorded data shows a substantial performance gap, but the analysis of each component's role, architecture, and specifications reveals why such a comparison is not merely about raw speed.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is stark and defined by form factor and power envelope. The Intel Arc B370, with a recorded TDP of 25 W and a slot width classified as IGP, is designed for systems where space and thermal output are minimal. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it operates using a portion of the host system's RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. This makes it suitable for basic computing, media playback, and light graphical tasks where a discrete GPU is unnecessary. Its production status is "Active," and its release date is 2026-01-26, indicating it is a current product intended for modern ultraportable or compact devices.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106, on the other hand, wins in every scenario requiring sustained, high-performance rendering. It is marked as "End-of-life" with a release date of 2024-03-31, but its data shows it was built for gaming and content creation. With a 115 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, it is a dedicated solution for desktop towers. The RTX 4060 AD106's benchmark percentile versus all GPUs is 50, placing it in the middle of the entire GPU population, while the Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile. This indicates that for any demanding application, the NVIDIA part is in a different performance class.

The Arc B370's only advantages are qualitative: it requires no power connectors ("None"), has no suggested PSU, and is a portable device dependent output. It wins in power efficiency and installation simplicity, not in performance. The RTX 4060 AD106 wins in every measurable performance metric, including shading units, texture rate, pixel rate, and FP32 throughput.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B370's average benchmark score is 1184. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, a delta of -0.2%, meaning the Arc B370 is essentially tied with it. It is 0.5% behind the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190) and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192). It is 1.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000 (score 1168).

Q: What is the performance percentile of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc B370 is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating it outperforms only a small fraction of the database. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 is in the 50th percentile, meaning it sits at the median performance level of all recorded GPUs.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Arc B370 uses "System Shared" memory, with its bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." The RTX 4060 AD106 uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a fixed bandwidth of 272.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The RTX 4060 AD106 has a TDP of 115 W, requires a single 12-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 has 3072 shading units and 24 ray tracing cores. The Arc B370 has 1280 shading units and 10 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part also has 96 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists no tensor core count.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two components, and the Intel Arc B370 has only one recorded benchmark entry. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 has no recorded benchmark scores in the provided data, though its percentile is listed. However, the available specification data allows for a clear comparative analysis.

The most significant difference is in FP32 performance. The RTX 4060 AD106 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS, while the Arc B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. This means the NVIDIA part provides approximately 2.46 times the raw single-precision compute throughput of the Intel part. In FP16, the RTX 4060 AD106 maintains 15.11 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Arc B370 offers 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The NVIDIA part is still ahead, but the gap narrows.

Texture and pixel fill rates also favor NVIDIA heavily. The RTX 4060 AD106 has a texture rate of 236.2 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 118.1 GPixel/s. The Arc B370 has a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA GPU is roughly 2.46 times faster in texture fill and 2.46 times faster in pixel fill, which directly impacts resolution scaling and texture-heavy workloads.

Clock speeds provide a mixed picture. The Arc B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz, which is extremely low, but it boosts to 2400 MHz. The RTX 4060 AD106 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 2460 MHz. The Intel boost clock is slightly lower, but its base clock is dramatically lower, suggesting aggressive power management for its 25 W envelope. The NVIDIA part maintains a much higher floor, which is critical for sustained performance.

The memory bandwidth difference is also decisive. The RTX 4060 AD106's 272.0 GB/s dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth far exceeds the Arc B370's "System Dependent" shared memory bandwidth, which cannot be quantified here. This means the NVIDIA part can feed its shading units and RT cores far more effectively, avoiding stalls in data-intensive scenes.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The RTX 4060 AD106 has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Arc B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores, while the Intel part has 10 RT cores and no listed tensor cores.

Memory is a major divergence: the RTX 4060 AD106 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the Arc B370 relies entirely on shared system memory. The process nodes differ, with Intel using a 3 nm process from its own foundry, and NVIDIA using a 5 nm process from TSMC. The RTX 4060 AD106 has a known transistor count of 22,900 million on a 188 mm² die, giving a density of 121.8M per mm². The Arc B370's transistor count and die size are unknown.

Power and physical requirements differ sharply. The Arc B370 is an IGP with no slot width beyond that classification, no power connectors, and a 25 W TDP. The RTX 4060 AD106 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 12-pin connector, a 115 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The bus interface also differs: the Arc B370 is an IGP, while the RTX 4060 AD106 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA part offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The NVIDIA card is marked as End-of-life, with a predecessor in GeForce 30 and a successor in GeForce 50, while the Intel part is Active with no listed predecessor or successor.

Architecture Differences

The architectural foundations are entirely distinct. The Intel Arc B370 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, specifically designed for the "Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake)" generation. It uses the Panther Lake chip and is fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. This architecture appears tailored for low-power integrated use, as evidenced by its 25 W TDP and shared memory design. The low base clock of 300 MHz suggests a design that aggressively idles and ramps up only when needed.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture, a high-performance discrete GPU design. It is fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a massive 22,900 million transistors packed into a 188 mm² die. The Ada Lovelace architecture is known for its dedicated RT cores and tensor cores, and the data confirms this: 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores are present, compared to the Intel part's 10 RT cores and no tensor core listing. The RTX 4060 AD106's memory clock of 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective) is a discrete design trait, and its 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio indicates a compute-focused architecture, whereas the Intel part's 2:1 FP16 ratio suggests a more graphics-oriented or power-saving approach.

The production statuses also tell a story. The Arc B370 is Active, a new product from 2026, while the RTX 4060 AD106 is End-of-life, having been released in 2024 and succeeded by the GeForce 50 series. The data indicates the Intel part is positioned for current mobile or compact systems, while the NVIDIA part represents a mature, established desktop solution.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of purpose. The Intel Arc B370, with its 5th percentile ranking, 25 W TDP, and shared memory, is intended for systems where a discrete GPU is not possible. Its performance is comparable to decade-old mobile GPUs like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (delta -0.2%) and ATI Radeon HD 5770 (delta -0.5%). It is not a gaming or rendering solution; it is an integrated graphics processor for basic display and compute tasks.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106, at the 50th percentile, is a dedicated mid-range desktop card. Its 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 272.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 8 GB of VRAM place it in a completely different class. The 2.46 times FP32 throughput advantage over the Arc B370, coupled with dedicated RT and tensor cores, makes it the only choice for modern gaming, ray tracing, or AI-adjacent workloads.

The verdict from the data is that these two products are not competitors. The Arc B370 should be chosen for ultra-low-power, integrated systems where the 25 W TDP and no-connector design are paramount. The RTX 4060 AD106 should be chosen for desktop builds where a 300 W PSU and dual-slot space are acceptable, and where the 50th percentile performance is needed. The Arc B370 wins on efficiency and integration; the RTX 4060 AD106 wins on every performance metric recorded.