Intel Arc B390 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell Comparison
Intel Arc B390
RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Arc B390 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell
The Verdict
The Intel Arc B390 and NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell occupy completely different performance tiers. The database records a single shared benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the NVIDIA card scores 4648 against Intel's 1482, a 68.1% deficit for the Arc part. The Arc B390 sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, while the RTX PRO 4000 sits at the 72nd percentile, placing it in the upper quarter of the entire database.
The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution for Panther Lake laptops. Its data shows it competes with decade-old discrete GPUs like the GeForce GT 710, GT 625 OEM, and GeForce 800M, all within 2.7% of its score. This part handles light 2D workloads, basic media playback, and low-end gaming, but it cannot serve as a primary rendering engine.
The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell is a professional workstation GPU. Its nearest rivals include the RTX 3090, RTX 4070 Mobile, and RX 6700 XT, all within 1.6% of its average score. The RTX A4000 sits 1.7% behind. Any user needing 24 GB of GDDR7 memory, 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth, or 36.83 TFLOPS of FP32 compute should choose the NVIDIA card outright.
The verdict is simple: pick the Arc B390 only for ultra-portable systems where no discrete GPU exists. Pick the RTX PRO 4000 for any serious 3D rendering, compute, or professional visualization work. The performance gap is not close, and the data confirms no scenario where the Intel part competes.
Architecture Differences
The two GPUs come from different foundries and nodes. Intel builds the Arc B390 on its own 3 nm process, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm node for the RTX PRO 4000. The Intel chip, codenamed Panther Lake, uses the Xe3-LPG architecture, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. NVIDIA's GB203 chip uses Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell PRO W (x000) family.
Transistor counts differ enormously. The RTX PRO 4000 packs 45,600 million transistors across a 378 mm² die, giving a density of 120.6M per mm². The Arc B390's transistor count and die size are unknown in the database, but its 80 W TDP versus the NVIDIA card's 140 W TDP indicates a much smaller implementation.
The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Arc B390 shares system memory, with no dedicated VRAM, no dedicated bus width, and bandwidth described as system dependent. The RTX PRO 4000 uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s. Clock behavior also differs: the Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 1230 MHz base and 2055 MHz boost.
Core counts show the scale gap. The Arc B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The RTX PRO 4000 has 8960 shading units, 280 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 70 RT cores, and 280 tensor cores. The Intel part has no tensor core data listed. FP32 throughput measures 7.680 TFLOPS for Intel versus 36.83 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 also differs: Intel delivers 15.36 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA matches its FP32 rate at 36.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.
Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The physical formats diverge: the Arc B390 is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and a portable-device-dependent display output. The RTX PRO 4000 is a single-slot card, 241 mm long, 111 mm tall, 20 mm thick, using one 16-pin connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, PCIe 5.0 x16, and four DisplayPort 2.1b outputs.
Where Each One Wins
The Arc B390 wins in power efficiency and portability. Its 80 W TDP requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for thin laptops. The database shows its nearest rivals are all low-end legacy GPUs, meaning it competes in the entry-level integrated space. No benchmark in the shared set favors Intel, but the absence of any PCIe power requirement and the IGP form factor give it an advantage for mobile systems.
The RTX PRO 4000 wins every performance category in the recorded data. It dominates the single shared 3DMark test, and its additional benchmarks show strengths across the board. Its PassMark G3D score of 28427 and GPU compute score of 14805 indicate strong rasterization and compute throughput. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 194168 confirms robust driver-level API performance. The 24 GB memory capacity supports large datasets, and the 672.0 GB/s bandwidth feeds the 36.83 TFLOPS FP32 engine.
For professional workloads, the RTX PRO 4000's 280 tensor cores enable AI acceleration, a feature entirely missing from the Arc B390's specification sheet. The 70 RT cores versus 12 provide substantially faster ray tracing. The NVIDIA card also holds a production date advantage, released on 2025-03-17 versus the Intel part's 2026-01-26 release.
FAQ
Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?
A: The RTX PRO 4000 delivers 36.83 TFLOPS FP32, which is 4.8 times the Arc B390's 7.680 TFLOPS. In the shared 3DMark Steel Nomad test, NVIDIA scores 4648 against Intel's 1482, a 68.1% lead.
Q: Can the Intel Arc B390 handle gaming?
A: The data places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with nearest rivals being the GeForce GT 710, GT 625 OEM, and GeForce 800M. These are entry-level parts from prior generations, indicating very limited modern gaming capability.
Q: How much memory does each card have?
A: The Arc B390 uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM. The RTX PRO 4000 has 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: What professional features does the RTX PRO 4000 offer?
A: It includes 280 tensor cores for AI workloads, 70 RT cores for ray tracing, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its PassMark G3D score of 28427 and GPU compute score of 14805 confirm strong professional performance.
Q: What is the power requirement difference?
A: The Arc B390 uses 80 W with no power connectors, while the RTX PRO 4000 uses 140 W with one 16-pin connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. The Intel part is an IGP, the NVIDIA card is a single-slot expansion card.
Q: Which GPU has better driver and API support?
A: Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the RTX PRO 4000's Geekbench Vulkan score of 194168 versus no Vulkan score for the Arc B390 suggests stronger real-world Vulkan performance.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The database contains exactly one shared benchmark between these two GPUs: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The RTX PRO 4000 scores 4648 points, while the Arc B390 scores 1482 points. The delta percentage is -68.1% for the Intel part, meaning NVIDIA holds a 3166-point absolute advantage. This single result encapsulates the entire performance relationship: the NVIDIA card is roughly three times faster in this DX12 workload.
The RTX PRO 4000's average benchmark score of 27135 across all its tests dwarfs the Arc B390's average of 1482. The NVIDIA card's percentile rank of 72 versus Intel's 9 places them in different stratospheres of the database. The nearest rival data confirms this: Intel's closest competitor, the GT 520MX, scores 1463, just 1.3% behind. NVIDIA's closest rival, the RTX 3090, scores 27565, just 1.6% ahead. The Arc B390 scrapes the bottom decile, while the RTX PRO 4000 outpaces the RTX 3090, a flagship discrete card.
Additional NVIDIA-only benchmarks show consistent strength. PassMark G3D at 28427, PassMark GPU compute at 14805, and Geekbench Vulkan at 194168 all indicate a card built for heavy sustained workloads. The PassMark DirectX results vary from 97 (DX12) to 354 (DX9), showing driver-level differences across API generations, but none of these scores approach the low-end territory where the Arc B390 resides.
Specification Differences
The two GPUs differ across every measurable specification category. Process node: Intel uses 3 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Foundry: Intel self-manufactures, NVIDIA uses TSMC. Transistors: NVIDIA lists 45,600 million, Intel's count is unknown. Die size: NVIDIA measures 378 mm², Intel's is unknown. Transistor density: NVIDIA shows 120.6M per mm², Intel has no data.
Clock speeds: Intel runs a 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost, NVIDIA runs 1230 MHz base and 2055 MHz boost. Memory: Intel uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, NVIDIA uses 24 GB GDDR7 at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) on a 192-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s.
Core configuration: Intel has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 RT cores with no tensor core data. NVIDIA has 8960 shading units, 280 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 70 RT cores, and 280 tensor cores. Pixel rate: Intel 60.00 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA 197.3 GPixel/s. Texture rate: Intel 120.0 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA 575.4 GTexel/s. FP32: Intel 7.680 TFLOPS versus NVIDIA 36.83 TFLOPS. FP16: Intel 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) versus NVIDIA 36.83 TFLOPS (1:1).
Power and physical: Intel 80 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, IGP bus interface, portable-device-dependent displays. NVIDIA 140 W TDP, single-slot, one 16-pin connector, 300 W suggested PSU, PCIe 5.0 x16, four DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, dimensions of 241 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm.
Release dates: NVIDIA launched 2025-03-17, Intel launches 2026-01-26. Both are active in production. The NVIDIA card's predecessor is Workstation Ada; the Intel part has no listed predecessor or successor. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.