Intel Arc B390 vs NVIDIA H800 PCIe 80 GB Comparison

Intel Arc B390 and NVIDIA H800 PCIe 80 GB occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, and the recorded data reflects that split clearly. The Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor built into Intel’s Panther Lake mobile platform, while the H800 PCIe 80 GB is a dual-slot server accelerator designed for compute-heavy workloads. The database contains a single benchmark score for the Arc B390 and no benchmark results for the H800, so the analysis relies on architectural specifications, clock behavior, memory configuration, and the one available 3DMark result.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc B390 wins in scenarios where power efficiency, compact integration, and basic graphics output matter. Its thermal design power is 80 W, it uses no external power connectors, and it is an integrated graphics processor with a slot width of IGP. That makes it suitable for portable devices where discrete graphics cannot fit. The display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning the platform controls connectivity. The Arc B390 also posts a measurable 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, placing it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are all low-end discrete NVIDIA parts: GeForce GT 520MX at 1463, GeForce 800M at 1460, GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446, and GeForce GT 710 at 1443. The Arc B390 leads each by 1.3%, 1.5%, 2.5%, and 2.7% respectively. Those margins are small, but they show the integrated part outperforming several older dedicated cards in that specific DX12 test.

The H800 PCIe 80 GB wins in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. It delivers 51.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 204.9 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 4:1 ratio, figures that dwarf the Arc B390’s 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The H800 carries 80 GB of HBM2e memory across a 5120-bit bus, producing 2.04 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc B390 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so its memory performance is ultimately tied to the host platform’s memory subsystem. The H800 also has 456 tensor cores, which the Arc B390 lacks entirely in the recorded specifications. For server workloads involving large datasets, matrix math, or memory-intensive operations, the H800 is the clear choice based on every available metric.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share almost nothing in design philosophy. The Arc B390 uses Intel’s Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with the chip codenamed Panther Lake. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation. The H800 uses NVIDIA’s Hopper architecture on a 5 nm process node from TSMC, built around the GH100 chip. The process node difference favors Intel in terms of lithography, but the H800 compensates with a massive physical implementation: 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 98.3 million per square millimeter. The Arc B390’s transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Arc B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 raster output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The H800 has 14592 shading units, 456 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The H800 has no listed ray tracing cores, but it includes 456 tensor cores dedicated to AI acceleration. The H800’s texture rate is 800.3 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s for the Arc B390. The pixel rates are closer: the Arc B390 posts 60.00 GPixel/s while the H800 posts 42.12 GPixel/s. That pixel rate advantage for the integrated part is notable, though it does not translate to a win in overall compute.

Clock behavior also differs. The Arc B390 runs at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 2500 MHz. The H800 runs at 1095 MHz base and 1755 MHz boost. Despite much lower raw clock speeds, the H800 achieves far higher throughput because of its massive shader count. Memory clocks are likewise different: the Arc B390 uses system shared memory with no dedicated clock, while the H800 runs its HBM2e at 1593 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective data rate.

The software and interface profiles are opposites as well. The Arc B390 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a fully featured consumer graphics stack. The H800 lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database, reinforcing its role as a compute-oriented accelerator rather than a rendering device. The H800 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Arc B390 is integrated with an IGP bus interface. The H800 has no display outputs; the Arc B390’s outputs depend on the portable device it is embedded in.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the Arc B390 and the H800 PCIe 80 GB. The wins counters show zero for both parts, and the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. That means there is no single recorded test where both processors ran the same workload and produced comparable scores.

What does exist is a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result for the Arc B390: a score of 1482. The database also provides nearest rival comparisons for the Arc B390, all against older NVIDIA discrete GPUs. The H800 has no benchmark scores and no nearest rivals listed, so its percentile of 50 is not backed by any recorded test result in the database. The Arc B390’s percentile of 9 is backed by its Steel Nomad score, but that score only speaks to entry-level rendering performance.

Without a shared benchmark, the numerical comparison must come from specification-derived performance. The FP32 compute ratio shows the H800 delivering 51.22 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS for the Arc B390, which is roughly 6.7 times higher. FP16 shows a larger gap: 204.9 TFLOPS versus 15.36 TFLOPS, about 13.3 times higher. Texture rate favors the H800 at 800.3 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s, roughly 6.7 times higher. Pixel rate is the only metric where the Arc B390 leads, at 60.00 GPixel/s versus 42.12 GPixel/s, a 42% advantage. That pixel rate edge likely stems from the Arc B390’s higher boost clock and lower overall pipeline depth, but it does not offset the H800’s dominance in shader throughput.

The nearest rival data for the Arc B390 further contextualizes its position. Against the GeForce GT 520MX, the Arc B390 leads by 1.3% with scores of 1482 versus 1463. Against the GeForce 800M, the lead is 1.5% (1482 versus 1460). The GeForce GT 625 OEM trails by 2.5% (1482 versus 1446), and the GeForce GT 710 trails by 2.7% (1482 versus 1443). These deltas indicate that the Arc B390 sits at the very bottom of the performance ladder, competing with decade-old entry-level discrete GPUs. The H800, by contrast, is built for a completely different workload class, one where rendering benchmarks like Steel Nomad are not even applicable.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward split. The Intel Arc B390 is for portable, integrated systems that need basic 3D rendering, modern API support, and minimal power draw. Its 80 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and IGP form factor make it a platform component rather than a standalone card. Its 3DMark score of 1482 and 9th percentile ranking show it can handle light DX12 workloads, and its nearest rival margins confirm it sits just above the weakest discrete GPUs in the database. For anyone using a Panther Lake laptop or compact device, the Arc B390 provides a complete graphics stack with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, plus 12 ray tracing cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing in supported titles.

The NVIDIA H800 PCIe 80 GB is for servers and compute environments where rendering is not the goal. It has no display outputs, no consumer API support, and a 350 W TDP that requires a 750 W suggested PSU and a 16-pin power connector. Its 80 GB of HBM2e memory with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth, 456 tensor cores, and 51.22 TFLOPS FP32 throughput position it for AI training, scientific simulation, and large-scale data processing. The 204.9 TFLOPS FP16 figure, achieved with a 4:1 ratio, indicates strong mixed-precision capability. The H800’s 5 nm TSMC process and 814 mm² die with 80,000 million transistors show a design optimized for maximum compute density, not for efficiency in small form factors.

Neither part is a substitute for the other. The Arc B390 cannot approach the H800’s memory bandwidth or tensor throughput, and the H800 cannot output video or run consumer graphics APIs. The absence of any shared benchmark in the database means no direct comparison can be made, but the specification gap is so wide that any such test would likely show the H800 far ahead in compute and the Arc B390 ahead only in pixel rate and power efficiency. The verdict from the recorded data is simple: choose the Arc B390 for integrated graphics in portable systems, choose the H800 for server-side compute acceleration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA H800 PCIe 80 GB delivers 51.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The H800 uses 80 GB of HBM2e memory with a 5120-bit bus and 2.04 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc B390 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Does the Arc B390 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc B390 includes 12 ray tracing cores. The H800 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the Arc B390’s performance relative to its nearest rivals?

A: In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Arc B390 scores 1482. It leads the GeForce GT 520MX by 1.3%, the GeForce 800M by 1.5%, the GeForce GT 625 OEM by 2.5%, and the GeForce GT 710 by 2.7%.

Q: What process nodes are used for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc B390 uses a 3 nm process from Intel. The NVIDIA H800 PCIe 80 GB uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA H800 PCIe 80 GB has 456 tensor cores. The Intel Arc B390 does not list any tensor cores in the database.