Intel Arc B370 vs NVIDIA H800 SXM5 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 points, while the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 averages 1186 points. The Intel part trails by 0.2%, a margin that is effectively negligible in practical terms.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the Intel Arc B370 and the AMD FirePro M2000?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 points, which is 1.4% higher than the AMD FirePro M2000's average score of 1168 points. This makes the FirePro M2000 the closest competitor from below in the recorded data.

Q: What is the percentile rank of the NVIDIA H800 SXM5 among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database. In contrast, the Intel Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile, indicating a substantial gap in relative standing.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the NVIDIA H800 SXM5?

A: The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 uses 80 GB of HBM3 memory across a 5120-bit bus, delivering 3.36 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc B370, by comparison, uses system shared memory with bandwidth that is system dependent.

Q: What are the TDP values for the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W, while the NVIDIA H800 SXM5 has a TDP of 700 W. The H800 requires an 8-pin EPS power connector and a suggested PSU of 1100 W, whereas the Arc B370 uses no power connectors.

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 delivers 59.30 TFLOPS, roughly 9.65 times higher.

The Verdict

The recorded data places these two products at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the choice between them depends entirely on the workload context. The Intel Arc B370 occupies the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 points. Its nearest rivals in the database, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and the AMD FirePro M2000, sit within 1.4% of that score. This is a low-power integrated graphics solution for portable devices, drawing 25 W and using system shared memory.

The NVIDIA H800 SXM5, by contrast, is a server-class accelerator with no benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its 50th percentile rank is derived from its overall standing, not from a direct benchmark entry. The data shows a device with 16896 shading units, 528 tensor cores, and 80 GB of HBM3 memory delivering 3.36 TB/s of bandwidth. It consumes 700 W and requires a dedicated 1100 W power supply.

For workloads that fit the H800 SXM5's profile, such as high-throughput compute with tensor acceleration, the data indicates an overwhelming advantage in raw specifications. The Intel Arc B370 is suited to scenarios where power draw is constrained to 25 W and where graphics output is portable-device dependent. The H800 SXM5 has no display outputs, which confirms it is not intended for direct visual output.

The choice between them is not competitive in the traditional sense. The Arc B370 targets integrated, low-power mobile graphics. The H800 SXM5 targets server deployments with massive memory bandwidth and compute density. Any user selecting between these two would be selecting between entirely different product categories.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the Intel Arc B370 and the NVIDIA H800 SXM5. The wins counter for each product is zero. However, the recorded specifications allow for direct numerical comparisons across several compute and memory metrics.

The most significant advantage for the NVIDIA H800 SXM5 appears in FP32 throughput. The H800 delivers 59.30 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the Arc B370. That is an approximate 9.65 times difference in raw single-precision compute. The gap widens further in FP16 performance: the H800 reaches 237.2 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio, while the Arc B370 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The H800's FP16 output is roughly 19.3 times higher.

Texture processing follows the same pattern. The H800 SXM5 achieves 926.6 GTexel/s, while the Arc B370 manages 96.00 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are closer, though the H800 still leads: 42.12 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s for the Arc B370. The Arc B370 actually holds a 13.9% advantage in pixel rate, which is the only specification where the Intel part leads the H800.

Memory capacity and bandwidth heavily favor the H800. The H800 provides 80 GB of HBM3 across a 5120-bit bus with 3.36 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc B370 uses system shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth that are system dependent. No fixed numerical comparison is possible for memory bandwidth because the Arc B370 does not have dedicated memory.

Shader resources also favor the H800. The H800 contains 16896 shading units and 528 tensor cores. The Arc B370 has 1280 shading units and no tensor core field. The H800 has 528 texture mapping units versus 40 on the Arc B370. Raster operation units are closer: 24 on the H800 versus 20 on the Arc B370.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The Arc B370 runs at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz. The H800 runs at a base clock of 1095 MHz and boosts to 1755 MHz. The Intel part has a higher boost clock, but the H800's much larger execution resource pool compensates in aggregate throughput.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

Process and fabrication: The Intel Arc B370 uses a 3 nm process from Intel. The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The H800 has a recorded transistor count of 80,000 million and a die size of 814 mm², with a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The Arc B370 has unknown transistor count and die size.

Clock speeds: The Arc B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The H800 has a base clock of 1095 MHz and a boost clock of 1755 MHz. The H800 also lists a memory clock of 1313 MHz, operating at 5.3 Gbps effective, while the Arc B370's memory clock is system shared.

Memory subsystem: The Arc B370 uses system shared memory with system shared type, bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. The H800 uses 80 GB of HBM3 with a 5120-bit bus and 3.36 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources: The Arc B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. The H800 has 16896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores, with no ray tracing core count recorded.

Output rates: The Arc B370 produces 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. The H800 produces 42.12 GPixel/s and 926.6 GTexel/s.

Power and cooling: The Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W, is an IGP slot width, and uses no power connectors. The H800 has a TDP of 700 W, is an SXM module, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, and has a suggested PSU of 1100 W.

Interface and outputs: The Arc B370 uses an IGP bus interface and its display outputs are portable device dependent. The H800 uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no display outputs.

API support: The Arc B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H800 has no recorded API support fields for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc B370 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. Its chip is code-named Panther Lake. The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 is built on the Hopper architecture using the GH100 chip, belonging to the Server Hopper generation. The H800 lists its predecessor as Server Ada and its successor as Server Blackwell. The Arc B370 lists no predecessor or successor.

The Intel part integrates graphics into a 3 nm process with 1280 shading units and 10 ray tracing cores. It relies on system shared memory, which means its memory behavior is tied to the host platform. The H800, by contrast, is a discrete server accelerator with dedicated HBM3 memory. Its 528 tensor cores indicate a design aimed at matrix and tensor workloads, while the Arc B370's 10 ray tracing cores indicate a focus on graphics workloads such as ray-traced rendering.

The H800's 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die reflect a high-density server design. The Arc B370 does not have recorded transistor or die size data. The H800's 5 nm process from TSMC and its 700 W TDP place it in a power class far above the Arc B370's 25 W integrated design.

The Arc B370 supports a full modern graphics API stack, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. The H800 has no recorded graphics API support, which aligns with its lack of display outputs and its server orientation. The Arc B370's FP16 throughput is 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the H800's FP16 throughput is 237.2 TFLOPS at a 4:1 ratio, reflecting a different ratio of FP16 to FP32 execution.

The architecture differences confirm that these are not competing products. The Arc B370 is a graphics-first integrated solution for portable devices. The H800 is a compute-first server module without display output. The only recorded metric where the Arc B370 leads is pixel rate, where it reaches 48.00 GPixel/s versus 42.12 GPixel/s for the H800, a consequence of its higher boost clock of 2400 MHz and its 20 ROPs.