Intel Arc B390 vs NVIDIA H800 SXM5 Comparison

Intel Arc B390 and NVIDIA H800 SXM5 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The database records a single benchmark score for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA accelerator has no recorded benchmark entries. The comparison relies on architectural specifications, compute capabilities, and market positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark result belongs to the Intel Arc B390. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 1482 points. This places the Arc B390 at the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The nearest rivals provide context: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX averages 1463 points, putting the Arc B390 1.3% ahead. The GeForce 800M trails by 1.5% with an average score of 1460. The GeForce GT 625 OEM sits 2.5% behind at 1446 points, and the GeForce GT 710 is 2.7% behind at 1443 points.

These deltas are narrow. The Arc B390 leads its closest competitor by barely over one percent. Benchmark results indicate that this integrated graphics solution competes at the entry level of discrete mobile GPUs from previous generations. The performance gap between first and fourth place among these rivals is less than three percentage points, suggesting that all four cards occupy a similar performance tier.

The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 has no benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as zero, and there are no nearest rivals to reference. The percentile ranking of 50 places it at the midpoint of all GPUs, but without measurement data, this ranking cannot be interpreted as a performance indicator. The absence of recorded results means no direct head-to-head comparison with the Arc B390 is possible from the database.

The wins tally shows zero for both products. No comparative benchmark data exists to award either side a victory. The Arc B390 delivers one measured result, while the H800 SXM5 delivers none. Any performance relationship between these two parts remains unquantified by the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The Arc B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel. The H800 SXM5 uses the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture, part of the Server Hopper generation. It uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The process nodes differ by two nanometers in lithographic scale, with Intel using the finer geometry.

Transistor counts reveal a massive disparity. The H800 SXM5 contains 80,000 million transistors on a die size of 814 mm². Its transistor density calculates to 98.3M per mm². The Arc B390 lists transistor count and die size as unknown, so no comparison can be made on those metrics. The density figure for the NVIDIA part indicates an extremely crowded silicon layout, typical of a large compute accelerator.

Memory configurations diverge completely. The Arc B390 uses system shared memory, with the type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The clock speed for memory is also system shared. The H800 SXM5 uses 80 GB of HBM3 memory on a 5120-bit bus. Its memory clock runs at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective speed. Bandwidth reaches 3.36 TB/s. The NVIDIA part carries dedicated high-bandwidth memory, while the Intel part relies on the host system's memory pool.

Compute unit counts differ substantially. The Arc B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. It includes 12 ray tracing cores. The H800 SXM5 has 16896 shading units, 528 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. It includes 528 tensor cores but lists no ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 11 times more shading units and 11 times more texture mapping units than the Intel part. Both have identical raster output unit counts at 24.

Clock speeds show an interesting tradeoff. The Arc B390 runs at a base of 300 MHz and boosts to 2500 MHz. The H800 SXM5 runs at a base of 1095 MHz and boosts to 1755 MHz. The Intel part has a lower base clock but a much higher boost clock. The NVIDIA part has a higher floor but a lower ceiling. The Arc B390's boost clock exceeds the H800 SXM5's boost by 745 MHz.

Pixel and texture rates follow the compute unit counts. The Arc B390 achieves 60.00 GPixel/s and 120.0 GTexel/s. The H800 SXM5 achieves 42.12 GPixel/s and 926.6 GTexel/s. Despite having the same number of ROPs, the Intel part has a higher pixel rate due to its higher boost clock. The NVIDIA part dominates in texture rate with a 7.7 times advantage, driven by its 528 TMUs.

Floating point performance shows the H800 SXM5's compute orientation. The Arc B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The H800 SXM5 delivers 59.30 TFLOPS FP32 and 237.2 TFLOPS FP16 at a 4:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part is 7.7 times faster in FP32 and 15.4 times faster in FP16. The FP16 ratio difference indicates that the Hopper architecture dedicates more silicon to reduced-precision compute.

Power and physical specifications separate the two products further. The Arc B390 has a TDP of 80 W, uses an IGP slot width, has no power connectors, and connects via an IGP bus interface. The H800 SXM5 has a TDP of 700 W, uses an SXM Module slot width, requires an 8-pin EPS power connector, and recommends a 1100 W power supply. It connects via PCIe 5.0 x16. The NVIDIA part consumes 8.75 times more power than the Intel part.

API support differs based on target market. The Arc B390 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate at 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H800 SXM5 lists null values for all three APIs, indicating it is not designed for graphics rendering workloads. Display outputs for the Arc B390 are listed as portable device dependent. The H800 SXM5 has no display outputs at all.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc B390 wins in scenarios that require graphics rendering and display output. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can handle game workloads and graphics applications. The 12 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects. Its integrated nature suits portable devices where space and power are constrained. The 80 W TDP aligns with mobile or compact form factors. The boost clock of 2500 MHz gives it a frequency advantage that contributes to its pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s.

The H800 SXM5 wins in compute-heavy data center workloads. Its 59.30 TFLOPS FP32 and 237.2 TFLOPS FP16 performance positions it for scientific computing, AI training, and inference tasks. The 528 tensor cores accelerate matrix operations common in neural networks. The 80 GB HBM3 memory with 3.36 TB/s bandwidth supports large datasets that exceed the capacity of system shared memory. The 700 W TDP and SXM Module form factor indicate a server installation designed for sustained high-throughput operation. The lack of display outputs and graphics APIs confirms this part is not intended for rendering.

The transistor count difference tells the story of scale. The H800 SXM5's 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die represent a massive investment in parallel compute resources. The Arc B390's unknown transistor count suggests a much smaller implementation, consistent with an integrated GPU. The 528 tensor cores versus 12 ray tracing cores shows divergent priorities: the H800 SXM5 optimizes for AI and scientific compute, while the Arc B390 retains graphics acceleration features.

Power efficiency differs markedly. The Arc B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 within an 80 W envelope. The H800 SXM5 delivers 59.30 TFLOPS FP32 within a 700 W envelope. Per watt, the Intel part achieves 0.096 TFLOPS/W while the NVIDIA part achieves 0.0847 TFLOPS/W. The Arc B390 is approximately 13% more efficient in FP32 per watt, though the H800 SXM5 still delivers substantially more absolute performance.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Arc B390 outperform the NVIDIA H800 SXM5 in any benchmark?

A: The database contains only one benchmark result for the Arc B390, scoring 1482 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The H800 SXM5 has no recorded benchmark scores. No direct comparison is possible from the recorded data.

Q: What memory does each product use?

A: The Arc B390 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The H800 SXM5 uses 80 GB of HBM3 memory on a 5120-bit bus with a bandwidth of 3.36 TB/s and a memory clock of 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective).

Q: Which product has a higher boost clock?

A: The Arc B390 boosts to 2500 MHz. The H800 SXM5 boosts to 1755 MHz. The Intel part has a higher boost clock by 745 MHz, though its base clock is 300 MHz versus 1095 MHz for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The Arc B390 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H800 SXM5 lists null values for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no graphics API support.

Q: How do the FP32 performance figures compare?

A: The Arc B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32. The H800 SXM5 delivers 59.30 TFLOPS FP32, which is 7.7 times higher. The NVIDIA part also delivers 237.2 TFLOPS FP16 versus 15.36 TFLOPS for the Intel part.

Q: What is the power draw of each product?

A: The Arc B390 has a TDP of 80 W and uses no power connectors. The H800 SXM5 has a TDP of 700 W, requires an 8-pin EPS power connector, and suggests an 1100 W power supply.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two products with fundamentally different design goals. The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated GPU for portable devices. Its 80 W TDP, IGP slot width, system shared memory, and display outputs confirm its role as a graphics solution embedded in a mobile platform. The single benchmark score of 1482 places it at the 9th percentile, with nearest rivals all within 2.7% of its performance. This indicates entry-level graphics capability suitable for basic rendering tasks.

The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 is a data center compute accelerator. Its 700 W TDP, SXM Module form factor, 8-pin EPS power connector, and 1100 W suggested power supply indicate a server-class installation. The 80 GB HBM3 memory, 528 tensor cores, and 237.2 TFLOPS FP16 target AI and high-performance computing workloads. The absence of display outputs and graphics APIs reinforces its compute-only positioning.

Users requiring graphics rendering, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, ray tracing, or display output should select the Arc B390. It is the only product with recorded graphics API support and display capabilities. Its 12 ray tracing cores and Vulkan 1.4 support make it suitable for modern rendering pipelines.

Users requiring massive parallel compute, large memory capacity, or tensor operations should select the H800 SXM5. Its 16896 shading units, 59.30 TFLOPS FP32, and 3.36 TB/s bandwidth provide the throughput needed for intensive numerical workloads. The 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die represent a scale of compute investment that the Arc B390 cannot match.

The choice depends entirely on workload. The two products do not compete in the same market segment. The Arc B390 addresses integrated graphics needs at the 9th percentile performance level. The H800 SXM5 addresses server compute needs with no recorded benchmarks but specifications that indicate far higher absolute performance. No head-to-head data exists to suggest otherwise.