Intel Arc B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the Intel Arc B370 has a single benchmark entry, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This asymmetry defines the entire analysis. The Intel part is measured at 1184 points in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA part holds a 50th percentile position, but that percentile is derived from its hardware profile rather than direct benchmark results.

The Intel Arc B370 wins the only measurable benchmark by default, but the surrounding data tells a more complex story. Its nearest rivals in the database include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186 points, delta -0.2%), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190 points, delta -0.5%), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192 points, delta -0.7%), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168 points, delta 1.4%). These deltas are all within 1.5 points of the Arc B370's score, indicating that the Intel part sits in a performance cluster that is essentially flat. The Arc B370 trails the ATI Radeon HD 5770 by 0.5%, which is a negligible margin in real-world terms. It leads the AMD FirePro M2000 by 1.4%, again a statistical tie.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has no wins because it has no recorded scores. However, its specification sheet suggests a different performance tier entirely. The database shows a 50th percentile placement, which is far above the Intel part's 5th percentile. The absence of benchmark data for the NVIDIA part means the database cannot confirm a head-to-head win, but the percentile gap implies the NVIDIA part occupies a higher performance stratum. The Intel part's 5th percentile places it among the lowest-performing GPUs in the database, while the NVIDIA part's 50th percentile places it squarely in the middle of the pack.

For use-case splits, the Intel Arc B370 appears suited to tasks where low power consumption and integrated graphics are priorities. Its 25 W TDP and IGP slot width indicate a design for portable devices where discrete graphics are not feasible. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation, with a 35 W TDP, also targets portable devices but brings a much larger compute footprint: 3072 shading units versus 1280, 96 texture mapping units versus 40, and 48 render output units versus 20. The NVIDIA part also includes 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores, while the Intel part has 10 ray tracing cores and no listed tensor cores.

The database's benchmark results, such as they are, suggest the Intel Arc B370 is competitive with GPUs from the early 2010s, while the NVIDIA part's specifications point to a modern mid-range mobile GPU. The Intel part's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is substantial for a 25 W part, but the NVIDIA part's 8.940 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is higher by a significant margin, approximately 45% more raw compute. The NVIDIA part also has a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the Intel part uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.

The Verdict

The data indicates two very different products. The Intel Arc B370, released on January 26, 2026, is a recent integrated GPU built on Intel's 3 nm process with the Panther Lake chip and Xe3-LPG architecture. Its 5th percentile ranking and benchmark scores near the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 suggest it is a low-power integrated solution for basic graphics tasks. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation, released on March 20, 2023, is a discrete-class mobile GPU based on the AD107 chip, Ada Lovelace architecture, and TSMC's 5 nm process. Its 50th percentile ranking, despite no direct benchmark scores, indicates it sits in the middle of the performance distribution.

Who should pick which depends entirely on the workload. The Intel Arc B370 is the only option with a recorded benchmark score, so for pure data-driven validation, it is the measured part. Its 1184 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 place it within a few points of older ATI and AMD parts, meaning it delivers performance comparable to a decade-old mid-range GPU. This makes it suitable for basic productivity, legacy game titles, or as a fallback when no discrete GPU is available. The 25 W TDP and system shared memory reinforce its role as an efficiency-first integrated part.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores, so any performance claims must come from its specification sheet. Its 8.940 TFLOPS FP32, 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 3072 shading units place it in a different class. The 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores give it hardware support for ray-traced workloads and AI acceleration, features the Intel part lacks. The 50th percentile ranking, derived from its specs, suggests it outperforms the majority of GPUs in the database, including the Intel part.

The database does not provide a direct comparison, so the verdict is conditional. For workloads that fit within the Intel part's measured performance envelope, the Arc B370 is the data-supported choice. For workloads that require the NVIDIA part's compute resources, ray tracing, or tensor cores, the RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation is the only option with those capabilities. The Intel part's 5th percentile versus the NVIDIA part's 50th percentile is the strongest quantitative signal available, and it favors the NVIDIA part by a wide margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database is empty. There are no recorded tests where both the Intel Arc B370 and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation ran the same workload. This means the comparison must rely on the single benchmark entry for the Intel part and the specification-derived percentile for the NVIDIA part.

The Intel Arc B370's only benchmark is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, with a score of 1184. Its nearest rivals in the database are all within a 1.5% delta, which indicates the score is representative of a very specific performance tier. 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. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower. These are all ancient parts from the early 2010s, and the Arc B370 sits comfortably among them.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has no benchmark entries, so its avgBenchmarkScore is 0. The database cannot produce a head-to-head win for either part because there is no common test. However, the percentile data provides an indirect comparison. The Intel part is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, meaning 95% of GPUs in the database score higher. The NVIDIA part is in the 50th percentile, meaning it outperforms half of all GPUs in the database. This percentile gap is the largest quantitative difference between the two parts.

The specification differences reinforce this gap. The NVIDIA part's FP32 throughput is 8.940 TFLOPS, which is 45% higher than the Intel part's 6.144 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part's texture rate is 139.7 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 45% advantage. The pixel rate is 69.84 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, a 45% advantage. These consistent 45% margins across compute, texture, and pixel rates suggest the NVIDIA part is uniformly faster in raw throughput.

Memory is another major differentiator. The NVIDIA part has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. This means the NVIDIA part has dedicated, high-bandwidth memory while the Intel part relies on the system's main memory, which is shared with the CPU. For memory-intensive workloads, this is a decisive advantage for the NVIDIA part.

The clock speeds also differ substantially. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 930 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz. The Intel part's boost clock is much higher, but its base clock is much lower, and the NVIDIA part's higher base clock suggests better sustained performance under load. The NVIDIA part's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the Intel part's memory clock is listed as system shared.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Arc B370 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: Yes, the database shows a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 points, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Does the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database lists no benchmarks for this part, and its avgBenchmarkScore is 0. Its 50th percentile placement is derived from its specification profile.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: It scores 1184 points, which is 0.2% below the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), 0.5% below the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), 0.7% below the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), and 1.4% above the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168).

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two parts?

A: The Intel Arc B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation delivers 8.940 TFLOPS FP32, a 45% higher figure.

Q: What memory configurations do the two parts use?

A: The Intel Arc B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

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

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has 3072 shading units and 24 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc B370 has 1280 shading units and 10 ray tracing cores.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc B370 is built on the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip with the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. These are fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel part is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, designed to be part of a larger system-on-chip. The NVIDIA part is also IGP-class in slot width, but it is a discrete GPU chip with a 35 W TDP and a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface.

The transistor counts differ dramatically. The NVIDIA part has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9 million per square millimeter. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, which limits the comparison. The NVIDIA part's high density reflects a mature 5 nm process, while the Intel part's 3 nm process is newer but its transistor data is not recorded.

The compute architectures also differ. The Intel part uses Xe3-LPG, which is Intel's latest integrated graphics architecture, while the NVIDIA part uses Ada Lovelace, which is NVIDIA's professional mobile architecture. The NVIDIA part includes 96 tensor cores, which are absent from the Intel part's specification. Tensor cores accelerate AI and machine learning workloads, a capability the Intel part does not list. The NVIDIA part also has 24 ray tracing cores versus 10 for the Intel part, giving it more than double the ray tracing hardware.

The FP16 capabilities differ as well. The Intel part lists FP16 at 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes half-precision at twice the rate of FP32. The NVIDIA part lists FP16 at 8.940 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it processes half-precision at the same rate as FP32. This is an interesting inversion: the Intel part has higher theoretical FP16 throughput, but the NVIDIA part has higher FP32 throughput. For AI workloads that rely on FP16, the Intel part's 2:1 ratio gives it a theoretical edge, but the NVIDIA part's tensor cores likely provide more practical acceleration.

The bus interfaces also differ. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16, a standard discrete GPU interface, while the Intel part uses IGP, meaning it connects directly to the processor. This affects how each part accesses memory and communicates with the rest of the system. The NVIDIA part's dedicated memory interface is a key architectural advantage, while the Intel part's system shared memory approach is typical for integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field that the database records. The process nodes are different: Intel uses 3 nm, while NVIDIA uses 5 nm. The foundries are different: Intel fabricates its own chip, while NVIDIA uses TSMC. The transistor counts are unknown for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA part has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The Intel part has a 300 MHz base clock and a 2400 MHz boost clock. The NVIDIA part has a 930 MHz base clock and a 1455 MHz boost clock. The Intel part's boost clock is 945 MHz higher, but its base clock is 630 MHz lower. The NVIDIA part's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the Intel part's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Memory specifications are completely different. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. This is a fundamental difference in memory architecture.

The shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units all favor the NVIDIA part. The NVIDIA part has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Intel part has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The ray tracing cores also differ: 24 for NVIDIA versus 10 for Intel. The NVIDIA part has 96 tensor cores, while the Intel part does not list any.

The pixel rate and texture rate reflect these differences. The NVIDIA part has a pixel rate of 69.84 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 139.7 GTexel/s. The Intel part has a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 8.940 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 6.144 TFLOPS for Intel. The FP16 throughput is 8.940 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 12.29 TFLOPS for Intel.

The TDP differs by 10 W: 35 W for NVIDIA versus 25 W for Intel. Both parts are listed as IGP slot width with no power connectors and portable device dependent display outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part uses IGP. The release dates differ by nearly three years: the NVIDIA part launched on March 20, 2023, and the Intel part launched on January 26, 2026. The NVIDIA part lists a predecessor (Ampere-MW) and a successor (Blackwell-MW), while the Intel part lists neither.