Intel Arc B390 vs NVIDIA B300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single benchmark result for the Intel Arc B390, while the NVIDIA B300 has no recorded benchmark scores. The only available measurement is the Intel Arc B390's score in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, which stands at 1482 points. This places the Arc B390 in the 9th percentile among all GPUs tracked in the database, indicating that it sits well below the median performance level of the current GPU landscape.

When compared against its nearest rivals in the database, the Arc B390's performance margin is remarkably narrow. The closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX with an average score of 1463, putting the Arc B390 just 1.3% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M trails by 1.5% with a score of 1460, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM sits 2.5% behind at 1446, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 is 2.7% back with a score of 1443. These deltas are small enough to be considered within run-to-run variance for most benchmark suites, meaning the Arc B390's advantage over these rivals is marginal at best.

The NVIDIA B300, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as zero, and it has no nearest rivals populated. The database assigns it a 50th percentile position, which reflects a median standing by default rather than any measured performance data. Consequently, no direct head-to-head comparison can be made between these two products based on recorded measurements. The data shows that the Arc B390 has at least one validated performance data point, while the B300 currently lacks any comparable benchmark evidence.

What can be stated from the available numbers is that the Arc B390's single recorded score places it in the lower decile of all GPUs, and its closest competitors are all entry-level NVIDIA parts from previous generations. The performance gap between the Arc B390 and these rivals is under three percentage points in every case, which suggests that the Arc B390 occupies a similar performance tier to those legacy parts. The B300, despite having no scores, is positioned in the database as a median performer, which is a statistical placeholder rather than a measured outcome.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc B390 and NVIDIA B300 diverge sharply in nearly every architectural aspect recorded. The Arc B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The B300 uses the GB110 chip with the Blackwell Ultra architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference gives Intel a density advantage on paper, though the B300 compensates with a far larger transistor budget.

The B300 packs 104,000 million transistors, a figure that dwarfs typical client GPUs. The Arc B390's transistor count is listed as unknown in the database, so no direct comparison can be made on that front. The B300 also carries a substantially larger die, though the die size field is null for both parts. The Arc B390 belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation for Panther Lake, while the B300 belongs to the Server Blackwell generation for the Bxx series.

Core configurations differ dramatically. The Arc B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 raster output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, 24 raster output units, and 592 tensor cores. The B300's raster output unit count matches the Arc B390 at 24, but every other compute resource is an order of magnitude larger on the NVIDIA side. The B300's tensor core count is listed at 592, while the Arc B390's tensor core field is null, reflecting that the two products target entirely different workloads.

Clock behavior also differs. The Arc B390 runs at a 300 MHz base clock with a 2500 MHz boost. The B300 runs at 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost. Despite the Arc B390's higher boost ceiling, the B300's massive core count yields far higher aggregate throughput. The pixel rate for the Arc B390 is 60.00 GPixel/s, while the B300's is 48.77 GPixel/s, giving Intel a 23% advantage in that specific metric. Texture rate tells the opposite story: the Arc B390 delivers 120.0 GTexel/s, while the B300 delivers 1,202.9 GTexel/s, a tenfold difference.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Arc B390 uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host platform. The B300 uses 144 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The B300's memory clock is listed at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate, while the Arc B390's memory clock is simply marked as system shared. The B300's memory subsystem is a dedicated, high-bandwidth design suited for server workloads, whereas the Arc B390 relies on the host system's memory pool.

Power and physical specifications are equally divergent. The Arc B390 has a TDP of 80 W, uses no power connectors, and is an integrated graphics processor with an IGP bus interface. The B300 has a TDP of 1400 W, requires a suggested PSU of 1800 W, and mounts as an SXM module with a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The Arc B390's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the B300 has no display outputs at all. API support also differs: the Arc B390 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B300 has null entries for all three APIs in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which product has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has a boost clock of 2500 MHz, which is higher than the NVIDIA B300's boost clock of 2032 MHz.

Q: How much memory does the NVIDIA B300 have?

A: The B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the Intel Arc B390's benchmark score?

A: The Arc B390 scored 1482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the NVIDIA B300 support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The database lists null API support entries for the B300, meaning no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support data is recorded for it.

Q: What process nodes do these two chips use?

A: The Intel Arc B390 uses a 3 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA B300 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do their texture rates compare?

A: The Arc B390 delivers 120.0 GTexel/s, while the B300 delivers 1,202.9 GTexel/s, making the B300 approximately ten times faster in texture throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc B390 | NVIDIA B300 |

|---|---|---|

| Process node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Unknown | 104,000 million |

| Base clock | 300 MHz | 1665 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2500 MHz | 2032 MHz |

| Memory size | System Shared | 144 GB |

| Memory type | System Shared | HBM3e |

| Memory bus width | System Shared | 4096 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 4.10 TB/s |

| Shading units | 1536 | 18,944 |

| Texture mapping units | 48 | 592 |

| Raster output units | 24 | 24 |

| Ray tracing cores | 12 | Null |

| Tensor cores | Null | 592 |

| Pixel rate | 60.00 GPixel/s | 48.77 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 120.0 GTexel/s | 1,202.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 7.680 TFLOPS | 76.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) | 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1) |

| TDP | 80 W | 1400 W |

| Suggested PSU | Null | 1800 W |

| Slot width | IGP | SXM Module |

| Power connectors | None | Null |

| Bus interface | IGP | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | Null |

| OpenGL support | 4.6 | Null |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | Null |

| Release date | 2026-01-26 | 2025-09-10 |

| Predecessor | Null | Server Hopper |

| Successor | Null | Server Rubin |

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Arc B390 wins in several specific metrics. Its pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s is 23% higher than the B300's 48.77 GPixel/s. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz exceeds the B300's 2032 MHz. It has a lower TDP at 80 W versus 1400 W, uses no external power connectors, and requires no dedicated power supply guidance. It also supports a full set of client APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the B300 has no recorded API support. The Arc B390's integrated design with portable device dependent display outputs makes it suitable for compact, low-power client systems.

The NVIDIA B300 dominates in computational throughput. Its FP32 performance of 76.99 TFLOPS is roughly ten times the Arc B390's 7.680 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance of 1,231.8 TFLOPS dwarfs the Arc B390's 15.36 TFLOPS. Texture rate favors the B300 at 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. The B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, and 592 tensor cores, versus 1536, 48, and zero respectively on the Arc B390. Memory capacity and bandwidth are overwhelmingly in the B300's favor with 144 GB at 4.10 TB/s versus system shared memory.

The B300's transistor count of 104,000 million and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface position it as a server-class accelerator with no display outputs, designed for compute-intensive workloads. The Arc B390's 12 ray tracing cores and 24 raster output units align with client graphics tasks. The B300 has no recorded ray tracing core count, so no comparison is possible there. The Arc B390's release date of 2026-01-26 comes later than the B300's 2025-09-10, but the B300 has defined predecessor and successor parts (Server Hopper and Server Rubin), while the Arc B390 has neither.

The benchmark data shows the Arc B390 holds a narrow lead over four legacy NVIDIA parts, all within 2.7% of its score. This confirms its placement in the entry-level performance tier. The B300's lack of recorded benchmarks prevents any direct performance comparison, but its specification sheet indicates a compute-oriented design with no client graphics features. The two products serve different segments: the Arc B390 as an integrated GPU for portable devices, and the B300 as a high-power server module with massive memory and tensor throughput.