Intel Arc B390 vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data draws a sharp line between these two integrated graphics parts from Intel. The Arc B390, built on the Panther Lake chip, is the clear performance leader in every measurable category. Its single recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, returns a score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs in the database. That score puts it 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M, 2.5% ahead of the GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% ahead of the GT 710.

The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile, built on the Wildcat Lake chip, has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and its nearest rivals list is empty. This means the head-to-head benchmark comparison cannot be populated with direct measurement data. The database shows zero wins for each part in direct comparison tests, simply because no such tests exist yet for the mobile part.

The measurable wins for the Arc B390 come from raw specification advantages. It delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is exactly six times the 1,280.0 GFLOPS of the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile. The pixel rate tells a similar story: 60.00 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s, a 3x advantage. Texture rate follows with 120.0 GTexel/s versus 40.00 GTexel/s, again a 3x gap. These are not small margins; they represent a fundamentally different execution resource allocation.

The Arc B390 also wins on power envelope expectations, though the numbers go in opposite directions. The B390 lists an 80 W TDP, while the mobile part lists 25 W. That is not a performance win, but it frames the mobile part as the efficiency-oriented option within the same Xe3-LPG architecture family.

Architecture Differences

Both parts use Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture, but they are built on different chips. The Arc B390 uses the Panther Lake chip, while the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip. Both are manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process node, and both are integrated graphics processors with an IGP slot width and no power connectors.

The execution unit counts diverge sharply. The Arc B390 carries 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile carries 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. That is a 6x difference in shading units, a 3x difference in TMUs, a 3x difference in ROPs, and a 6x difference in ray tracing cores. The B390 has six times the shading and ray tracing hardware, and three times the texture and pixel processing hardware.

Clock behavior is identical on paper. Both parts list a 300 MHz base clock and a 2500 MHz boost clock. Neither has a game clock listed. Memory architecture is also identical in structure: both use system shared memory, with system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. There is no dedicated VRAM on either part, and no memory clock figure is recorded beyond the system shared designation.

The FP16 compute rates reflect the same 6x ratio as FP32. The Arc B390 delivers 15.36 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 2.560 TFLOPS with the same 2:1 ratio. API support matches exactly: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for both, which makes sense for integrated mobile graphics.

The production status for both is Active. The Arc B390 has a release date of 2026-01-26, while the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile follows on 2026-04-15. The mobile part lists a predecessor, the HD Graphics-M, while the B390 lists no predecessor. Neither part lists a successor, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a simple split. The Arc B390 is the performance part. It carries six times the shading units, six times the ray tracing cores, three times the TMUs, three times the ROPs, and six times the FP32 throughput of the mobile part. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it just ahead of several low-end discrete NVIDIA parts from the GT 500M and GT 600M era, with deltas between 1.3% and 2.7%. That is a narrow margin, but it is a measurable one.

The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is the low-power part. Its 25 W TDP is less than one third of the B390's 80 W TDP. It has no recorded benchmark scores, no nearest rivals, and a 50th percentile rating that is based on an empty benchmark average. The database does not yet contain enough measurement data to assess its real-world standing against other GPUs. What the specifications show is a part designed for a much lighter power budget, with exactly one quarter of the shading units of the B390 and one sixth of the FP32 throughput.

For a system builder or laptop buyer, the recorded data indicates that the Arc B390 should be chosen when compute throughput, pixel fill, and texture fill are the priorities. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile should be chosen when power consumption is the limiting factor, and when the workload fits within a 25 W envelope. There is no benchmark evidence to suggest the mobile part can match the B390 in any performance metric, and there is no evidence to suggest the B390 can match the mobile part's power efficiency. The choice is not about which is better overall; it is about which constraint matters more.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score?

A: The Intel Arc B390. It scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: How much faster is the Arc B390 in FP32 compute?

A: The Arc B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is exactly six times the 1,280.0 GFLOPS of the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two parts?

A: The Arc B390 lists an 80 W TDP. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile lists a 25 W TDP.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same architecture and process node?

A: Yes. Both use the Xe3-LPG architecture and are built on Intel's 3 nm process node. The Arc B390 uses the Panther Lake chip, and the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the Arc B390 in the database?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX with an average score of 1463 and a delta of 1.3%, the GeForce 800M with a score of 1460 and a delta of 1.5%, the GT 625 OEM with a score of 1446 and a delta of 2.5%, and the GT 710 with a score of 1443 and a delta of 2.7%.

Q: Which part has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Arc B390 has 12 ray tracing cores. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 2 ray tracing cores, which is one sixth of the B390's count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark list in the database is empty, which means there is no direct test result comparing these two parts. The analysis therefore relies on the single benchmark recorded for the Arc B390 and the specification sheets for both parts.

The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 puts it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1463, giving the B390 a 1.3% lead. The next rival, the GeForce 800M, scores 1460, a 1.5% gap. The GT 625 OEM scores 1446, a 2.5% gap. The GT 710 scores 1443, a 2.7% gap. These deltas are consistent and positive, meaning the B390 finishes ahead of every nearby entry in the database, but the margins are modest. The B390 is not a dominant part; it sits at the edge of the low-end performance tier.

The compute specifications amplify that picture. The B390's 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput is a large absolute number for an integrated part, but it is six times the mobile part's 1,280.0 GFLOPS. The pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s is three times the mobile part's 20.00 GPixel/s. The texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s is three times the mobile part's 40.00 GTexel/s. Every throughput metric in the database favors the B390 by a factor of three or six.

The mobile part's only recorded advantages are its lower 25 W TDP and its later release date of 2026-04-15 compared to the B390's 2026-01-26. It also has a listed predecessor, the HD Graphics-M, while the B390 has none. Neither part has a launch MSRP, so no price comparison is possible from the recorded data.

The benchmark results indicate that the Arc B390 is the part to track for any workload that depends on raw graphics throughput. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile remains an unmeasured quantity in the database, with no scores and no rivals to frame its expected performance. Until benchmark data is recorded for the mobile part, the only defensible comparison is the specification sheet, and that sheet favors the B390 in every compute, pixel, texture, and ray tracing metric.