Intel Arc B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places these two GPUs in completely different tiers. The Intel Arc B370 holds a 5th percentile rank among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770, score 1186 and 1190 respectively, showing the Arc B370 sits within 1% of these older parts. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation occupies the 50th percentile, a far higher standing, though it has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The RTX 3500's specs, including 5120 shading units, 160 tensor cores, and 23.04 TFLOPS FP32, indicate a substantially more capable processor. The Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 is roughly a quarter of the NVIDIA part's throughput. For workloads requiring raw compute, the RTX 3500 is the clear choice based on its architecture and specifications. For low-power integrated graphics in portable devices, the Arc B370 fits that niche, but its performance ceiling is far lower.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries and process nodes. The Intel Arc B370 uses a 3 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel chip, codenamed Panther Lake, employs the Xe3-LPG architecture and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation. The NVIDIA part uses the AD104 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture and is part of the Ada-MW generation. The RTX 3500 has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The Arc B370's transistor count and die size are unknown in the database.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Arc B370 uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The RTX 3500 has 12 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part's memory clock is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed.

Core counts show a large gap. The Arc B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. The RTX 3500 has 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 RT cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 160 tensor cores, while the Intel chip lists none. The RTX 3500's pixel rate is 144.0 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s for the Arc B370. Texture rates are 360.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s.

Power and interface specifications diverge sharply. The Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W, while the RTX 3500 has a TDP of 100 W. Both use IGP slot width and have no power connectors. The Arc B370's bus interface is IGP, while the RTX 3500 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The RTX 3500 lists a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the Arc B370 has none. Display outputs differ: the Arc B370 is portable device dependent, while the RTX 3500 has no outputs.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 3500's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 23.04 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Arc B370's FP16 is 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1). The NVIDIA part's release date is March 2023, with a predecessor of Ampere-MW and a successor of Blackwell-MW. The Intel chip's release date is January 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The data suggests distinct use cases. The Intel Arc B370, with its 25 W TDP and integrated design, suits portable devices where power draw is minimal and memory is shared with the system. Its 3 nm process and low clock base of 300 MHz, boosting to 2400 MHz, indicate an efficiency-focused design. The 5th percentile benchmark rank places it among entry-level integrated graphics.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation targets embedded systems requiring substantial compute in a compact form. Its 100 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU indicate a need for more robust power delivery. The 12 GB GDDR6 memory with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth provides ample local bandwidth for compute tasks. The 160 tensor cores suggest machine learning workloads, while 40 RT cores support ray tracing. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface allows high data transfer rates.

The Arc B370's system shared memory means no dedicated VRAM, so performance depends on system memory speed and capacity. The RTX 3500's dedicated 12 GB pool avoids that dependency. For graphics workloads in embedded systems, the RTX 3500's 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 is a clear advantage. For low-power integrated graphics in thin clients or portable devices, the Arc B370's 25 W TDP is far lower than the RTX 3500's 100 W.

The RTX 3500 has no recorded benchmark scores, so direct performance comparisons rely on specification analysis. The Arc B370's single benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it near the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186) and ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), within 1%. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower than the Arc B370.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference between the Intel Arc B370 and NVIDIA RTX 3500?

A: The Arc B370 has a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, while the RTX 3500 has no benchmark scores in the database. Specification comparisons show the RTX 3500 delivers 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the Arc B370.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc B370 uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for these GPUs?

A: The Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W and no power connectors. The RTX 3500 has a TDP of 100 W, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Arc B370 has 10 ray tracing cores, while the RTX 3500 has 40 ray tracing cores.

Q: What process nodes do these chips use?

A: The Intel Arc B370 uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Are these GPUs integrated or discrete?

A: Both are listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors. The Arc B370's bus interface is IGP, while the RTX 3500 uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between these two GPUs. The Arc B370 has one recorded benchmark: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 1184. The RTX 3500 has no recorded benchmarks. The nearest rivals for the Arc B370 provide context for its performance tier. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370. 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, which is 1.4% lower.

These deltas place the Arc B370 in a narrow band around 1180-1190 points in this specific test. The RTX 3500's 50th percentile rank versus the Arc B370's 5th percentile rank indicates a substantial performance gap, though no direct benchmark comparison exists in the database. The RTX 3500's FP32 throughput of 23.04 TFLOPS is 3.75 times the Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. The RTX 3500's texture rate of 360.0 GTexel/s is 3.75 times the Arc B370's 96.00 GTexel/s. The pixel rate of 144.0 GPixel/s is exactly 3 times the Arc B370's 48.00 GPixel/s.

The RTX 3500's 5120 shading units are 4 times the Arc B370's 1280. The RTX 3500's 160 TMUs are 4 times the Arc B370's 40. The RTX 3500's 64 ROPs are 3.2 times the Arc B370's 20. The RTX 3500's 40 RT cores are 4 times the Arc B370's 10. The RTX 3500's 160 tensor cores have no equivalent in the Arc B370.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Arc B370's base clock is 300 MHz, while the RTX 3500's base is 1725 MHz. The boost clocks are closer: 2400 MHz for the Arc B370 versus 2250 MHz for the RTX 3500. The Arc B370's higher boost clock partially compensates for its lower core count, but the core count disparity remains decisive.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

Manufacturer: Intel versus NVIDIA

Chip: Panther Lake versus AD104

Architecture: Xe3-LPG versus Ada Lovelace

Generation: Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) versus Ada-MW

Process Node: 3 nm versus 5 nm

Foundry: Intel versus TSMC

Transistors: Unknown versus 35,800 million

Die Size: Unknown versus 294 mm²

Transistor Density: Not listed versus 121.8M per mm²

Base Clock: 300 MHz versus 1725 MHz

Boost Clock: 2400 MHz versus 2250 MHz

Memory Size: System Shared versus 12 GB

Memory Type: System Shared versus GDDR6

Memory Bus Width: System Shared versus 192 bit

Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent versus 432.0 GB/s

Memory Clock: System Shared versus 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective

Shading Units: 1280 versus 5120

TMUs: 40 versus 160

ROPs: 20 versus 64

RT Cores: 10 versus 40

Tensor Cores: Not listed versus 160

Pixel Rate: 48.00 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s

Texture Rate: 96.00 GTexel/s versus 360.0 GTexel/s

FP32 Performance: 6.144 TFLOPS versus 23.04 TFLOPS

FP16 Performance: 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 23.04 TFLOPS (1:1)

TDP: 25 W versus 100 W

Suggested PSU: Not listed versus 300 W

Bus Interface: IGP versus PCIe 4.0 x16

Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus No outputs

Release Date: January 2026 versus March 2023

Predecessor: Not listed versus Ampere-MW

Successor: Not listed versus Blackwell-MW

Benchmark Score: 1184 versus No recorded score

Percentile: 5th versus 50th