Intel Arc B390 vs NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a single recorded result for the Intel Arc B390: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. Consequently, direct head-to-head comparisons rely entirely on the Arc B390's nearest rivals, which are all older NVIDIA discrete GPUs.

The Arc B390's score of 1482 places it 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443). These deltas are narrow, indicating that the Arc B390's performance in this specific DX12 workload is only marginally superior to a set of legacy entry-level parts. The data suggests the Arc B390 delivers a modest performance uplift over these older GPUs, but the differences are small enough that real-world variability could easily overshadow them.

Because the RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation lacks any benchmark entries, the database provides no direct score for it. Its percentile ranking of 50 versus the Arc B390's percentile of 9 implies a substantial performance gap, but that ranking is derived from the broader GPU population, not from a direct comparison. The Arc B390's 9th percentile places it near the bottom of the database's performance distribution, while the RTX 500 Mobile's 50th percentile puts it at the median. The data indicates a large performance chasm between these two parts, with the NVIDIA solution sitting far higher in the overall ranking.

The wins tally in the database stands at zero for both products, reflecting the absence of any head-to-head benchmark entries. The Arc B390's single score is its only data point, and the RTX 500 Mobile has none. The recorded numbers therefore favor the RTX 500 Mobile by proxy: its percentile ranking suggests it outperforms the Arc B390 by a wide margin, even though a direct score is unavailable.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip with the Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 3 nm versus 5 nm, with the Intel part using a denser manufacturing technology.

The Arc B390's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, while the RTX 500 Mobile has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The Intel part's memory configuration is entirely system-shared, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system. The NVIDIA part uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc B390's memory clock is listed as "System Shared," while the RTX 500 Mobile runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed.

The compute resources differ substantially. The Arc B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 raster operation units, 12 ray tracing cores, and no tensor cores. The RTX 500 Mobile has 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part leads in every compute category, with 33% more shading units, 33% more TMUs, 33% more ROPs, 33% more RT cores, and a massive advantage in tensor cores where Intel lists none.

Clock speeds favor Intel on the boost side: the Arc B390 boosts to 2500 MHz versus the RTX 500 Mobile's 2025 MHz, though the NVIDIA part has a much higher base clock at 1485 MHz versus 300 MHz. The Intel part's FP32 throughput is 7.680 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part reaches 8.294 TFLOPS. FP16 performance shows a stark contrast: the Arc B390 delivers 15.36 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX 500 Mobile provides 8.294 TFLOPS at 1:1. The Intel part's FP16 advantage comes from its 2:1 throughput ratio, effectively doubling its FP32 rate, whereas NVIDIA maintains a 1:1 ratio.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data, limited as it is, shows the Arc B390 winning against its nearest rivals in the Steel Nomad DX12 test. It leads the GT 520MX by 1.3%, the 800M by 1.5%, the GT 625 OEM by 2.5%, and the GT 710 by 2.7%. These are narrow margins, but they are consistent wins across all four comparison points. The Arc B390's percentile ranking of 9, however, indicates it sits in the lowest decile of all GPUs in the database, suggesting its wins are confined to a very low-performance tier.

The RTX 500 Mobile's percentile ranking of 50 places it at the median of all GPUs. Based on that ranking, it wins decisively in overall positioning. The absence of benchmark scores means the database cannot show a direct performance win, but the percentile gap from 9 to 50 is substantial. The NVIDIA part also holds advantages in raw specifications that translate to compute workloads: more shading units, more ROPs, more RT cores, and dedicated tensor cores for AI tasks.

For power efficiency, the RTX 500 Mobile has a 35 W TDP versus the Arc B390's 80 W TDP. The NVIDIA part delivers higher FP32 throughput (8.294 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS) while consuming less than half the power budget. The Arc B390's higher FP16 throughput (15.36 TFLOPS versus 8.294 TFLOPS) gives it an edge in workloads that can exploit FP16 with the 2:1 ratio, but this comes at the cost of higher power draw.

Memory flexibility favors the Arc B390, which uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, allowing the host system to allocate as needed. The RTX 500 Mobile's fixed 4 GB GDDR6 configuration offers dedicated bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s, but that capacity is limited. The Arc B390's memory bandwidth is system-dependent, meaning it could exceed or fall short of the NVIDIA part depending on the host platform's memory configuration.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. The foundry is Intel for the Arc B390 and TSMC for the RTX 500 Mobile. Transistor count is unknown for Intel versus 18,900 million for NVIDIA. Die size is unknown for Intel versus 159 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor density is not listed for Intel versus 118.9M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds: the Arc B390 has a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2500 MHz, while the RTX 500 Mobile has a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 2025 MHz. Memory: the Intel part uses system-shared memory with an unknown type and bus width, while the NVIDIA part uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock is system-shared for Intel versus 2000 MHz for NVIDIA.

Compute units: 1536 shading units for Intel versus 2048 for NVIDIA; 48 TMUs versus 64; 24 ROPs versus 32; 12 RT cores versus 16; no tensor cores for Intel versus 64 for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s for Intel versus 64.80 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s for Intel versus 129.6 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 7.680 TFLOPS for Intel versus 8.294 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 15.36 TFLOPS for Intel versus 8.294 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Power: the Arc B390 has an 80 W TDP versus 35 W for the RTX 500 Mobile. Both use IGP slot widths and have no power connectors. The bus interface differs: IGP for Intel versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ: the Arc B390 launched on 2026-01-26, while the RTX 500 Mobile launched on 2024-02-25. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor (Ampere-MW) and successor (Blackwell-MW), while the Intel part lists neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc B390 boosts to 2500 MHz, while the NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation boosts to 2025 MHz.

Q: How much memory does the RTX 500 Mobile have?

A: The RTX 500 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B390 have tensor cores?

A: No, the Arc B390 lists no tensor cores, while the RTX 500 Mobile has 64 tensor cores.

Q: What is the power draw of each GPU?

A: The Arc B390 has an 80 W TDP, and the RTX 500 Mobile has a 35 W TDP.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Arc B390 uses a 3 nm process at Intel, while the RTX 500 Mobile uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

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

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it 1.3% ahead of the GT 520MX, 1.5% ahead of the 800M, 2.5% ahead of the GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% ahead of the GT 710.

The Verdict

The data shows the NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation as the superior performer by a wide margin. Its 50th percentile ranking versus the Arc B390's 9th percentile indicates a massive gap in overall GPU performance. The RTX 500 Mobile also leads in raw specifications across every compute category: 2048 shading units versus 1536, 64 TMUs versus 48, 32 ROPs versus 24, 16 RT cores versus 12, and 64 tensor cores versus none. Its FP32 throughput of 8.294 TFLOPS exceeds the Arc B390's 7.680 TFLOPS, and it achieves this while drawing only 35 W compared to the Intel part's 80 W.

The Arc B390's advantages are narrower. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz exceeds the RTX 500 Mobile's 2025 MHz, and its FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS more than doubles the NVIDIA part's 8.294 TFLOPS, thanks to the 2:1 ratio. The system-shared memory design offers flexibility that the fixed 4 GB GDDR6 configuration cannot match. Its benchmark score of 1482 in Steel Nomad DX12, while low in the overall distribution, does show wins against its nearest rivals.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the RTX 500 Mobile is the clear choice for general 3D performance, AI workloads with tensor cores, and power efficiency. The Arc B390 might suit scenarios where FP16 throughput matters more than FP32, or where system-shared memory flexibility is a priority. The data, however, overwhelmingly favors the NVIDIA part: a higher percentile ranking, more compute resources, lower power consumption, and dedicated memory with known bandwidth. The Arc B390's single benchmark result and low percentile ranking indicate it belongs in a much lower performance tier.