Intel Arc B370 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Arc B370 is limited to a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1184 points. The NVIDIA RTX A400 has no 3DMark Steel Nomad score in the database, so a direct comparison on that specific test is unavailable. However, the broader average benchmark scores reveal a significant gulf between the two. The Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the RTX A400 lands at the 35th percentile. The Arc B370 averages 1184 points across its recorded benchmarks, whereas the RTX A400 averages 6078 points, a difference of roughly 413%.

The RTX A400’s nearest rivals in the database, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 and the Quadro P2000 at 6049, sit within 0.5% of its average score. This places the A400 in a performance tier occupied by older mainstream discrete GPUs. The Arc B370, by contrast, is surrounded by competitors like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192, with the Arc trailing those by only 0.2% to 0.7%. The data indicates the Arc B370 operates at a performance level consistent with early 2010s integrated-class graphics, while the RTX A400 delivers roughly five times the average raw score.

In workload-specific tests, the RTX A400 shows a broad spread across API generations in Passmark. Its DirectX 9 score of 87 is the highest among its DirectX results, while DirectX 10 drops to 32, DirectX 11 to 37, and DirectX 12 to 27. The GPU compute score of 2557 and the G3D score of 5983 further illustrate that the A400 handles compute-oriented tasks far better than legacy DirectX rasterization. The Arc B370’s only recorded benchmark, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, cannot be directly compared to any A400 result, but the percentile gap alone positions the Arc as the weaker part in nearly every scenario.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc B370 is built on a 3 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, using the Panther Lake chip and Xe3-LPG architecture. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on Samsung’s 8 nm process, with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a density of 43.5M per mm². The Arc B370’s newer process node gives it a manufacturing advantage in principle, but the data does not translate that into benchmark superiority.

The Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor with an IGP bus interface and no power connectors. Its TDP is 25 W, and its slot width is listed as IGP. The RTX A400 is a discrete single-slot card with PCIe 4.0 x8 connectivity, a 50 W TDP, and no power connectors, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The Arc B370’s memory is system shared, with bandwidth described as system dependent, while the RTX A400 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Arc B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 ray tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores. Despite having fewer shading units, the A400’s tensor core count gives it a distinct feature for AI workloads that the Arc B370 lacks entirely. Clock speeds also differ: the Arc B370 runs at a 300 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the RTX A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. The Arc’s much higher boost clock partially offsets its architectural layout, but measured throughput tells a different story.

Pixel and texture rates confirm the gap. The Arc B370 delivers 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s, while the RTX A400 delivers 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s. The Arc B370 is ahead in both fillrate metrics, which is notable given its lower average benchmark score. FP32 performance, however, favors the Arc at 6.144 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS for the A400. FP16 follows the same pattern: the Arc reaches 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the A400 matches its FP32 at 2.706 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The A400’s API support, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, matches the Arc B370 exactly. Display outputs differ: the Arc B370 is portable device dependent, while the RTX A400 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the stronger GPU for nearly all measurable workloads. Its average benchmark score of 6078 places it at the 35th percentile, while the Intel Arc B370’s 1184 average places it at the 5th percentile. The A400’s nearest rivals are modern mainstream parts like the GeForce MX230 and Quadro P2000, whereas the Arc B370 competes with the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and AMD FirePro M2000, all from a much older era. For any application that relies on compute or general 3D rendering, the A400’s recorded results, including a G3D score of 5983 and a GPU compute score of 2557, position it as the practical choice.

The Arc B370 does hold advantages in raw fillrate and FP32 throughput, but those metrics do not appear in its average benchmark score. Its 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are higher than the A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS and 28.19 GPixel/s, yet the Arc’s only benchmark result, 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, places it far below the A400’s tier. The discrepancy suggests the Arc B370’s integrated design, with system shared memory and no dedicated VRAM, limits real-world performance despite strong theoretical numbers.

For users prioritizing measured performance, the RTX A400 is the clear pick. Its dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory, tensor cores, and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provide a more complete package for workstation tasks. The Arc B370, as an IGP with system shared memory, is suited only for scenarios where its low 25 W TDP and integrated form factor are the primary constraints. The data does not support choosing the Arc B370 for performance-sensitive work.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The Intel Arc B370 uses a 3 nm Intel process with the Panther Lake chip and Xe3-LPG architecture, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 uses Samsung’s 8 nm process with the GA107 chip and Ampere architecture. The A400 lists 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die with a density of 43.5M per mm²; the Arc B370’s transistor count and die size are unknown.

Clock speeds: the Arc B370 runs at 300 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the RTX A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. The Arc’s memory is system shared with system dependent bandwidth; the A400 has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units: 1280 for the Arc versus 768 for the A400. TMUs: 40 versus 24. ROPs: 20 versus 16. Ray tracing cores: 10 versus 6. Tensor cores: none for the Arc versus 24 for the A400.

Pixel rate: 48.00 GPixel/s for the Arc versus 28.19 GPixel/s for the A400. Texture rate: 96.00 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32: 6.144 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS. FP16: 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP: 25 W versus 50 W. The Arc is an IGP with no slot width beyond that classification, while the A400 is a single-slot card measuring 163 mm by 69 mm. The Arc uses an IGP bus interface; the A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: portable device dependent for the Arc versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the A400. Release dates: the Arc B370 launched on 2026-01-26, while the RTX A400 launched on 2024-04-15.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 averages 6078 points across its recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Arc B370 averages 1184 points.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B370 have any performance advantages?

A: Yes, the Arc B370 has higher FP32 throughput at 6.144 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS, higher pixel rate at 48.00 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s, and higher texture rate at 96.00 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s.

Q: How do their process nodes compare?

A: The Intel Arc B370 is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 uses Samsung’s 8 nm process.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Arc B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 has 24 tensor cores. The Intel Arc B370 lists no tensor cores.

Q: What are their power requirements?

A: The Arc B370 has a 25 W TDP and no power connectors. The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in every recorded benchmark category where both have data. Its average score of 6078 versus 1184 for the Arc B370 is the dominant metric. The A400’s Passmark results, including G3D at 5983, GPU compute at 2557, and DirectX 9 at 87, show strength in compute and legacy API workloads. Its 24 tensor cores and dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory make it the only option of the two for AI-adjacent tasks, assuming those rely on tensor core acceleration. The A400’s 35th percentile ranking versus the Arc’s 5th percentile further confirms its broad superiority.

The Intel Arc B370 wins on theoretical throughput metrics. Its 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 is more than double the A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 12.29 TFLOPS dwarfs the A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS. Fillrate also favors the Arc: 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s. These numbers suggest the Arc B370 could excel in scenarios where raw shader throughput matters more than memory bandwidth or sustained rendering, but the absence of benchmark evidence for such tasks leaves that as an inference from the specifications, not a measured result.

In practical terms, the RTX A400 is the part for workstation use. Its dedicated memory, tensor cores, and higher percentile ranking make it suitable for compute-heavy or professional rendering workloads. The Arc B370, with its 25 W TDP and integrated design, fits only low-power portable systems where the 3 nm process and high boost clock might offer efficiency benefits. The recorded data does not show any workload where the Arc B370 outperforms the A400 in a benchmark score, so its wins are limited to specification-level comparisons.