Intel Arc B770 vs NVIDIA B300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc B770 and the NVIDIA B300. Both cards sit at the 50th percentile in the overall GPU distribution, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. This absence of comparative data is itself informative: the two products are not positioned as competitors in any measurable workload category, and any attempt to infer relative performance from the database would require extrapolation beyond the recorded facts.

What can be stated directly from the specification data is that the NVIDIA B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS. That places the B300 at roughly 3.9 times the raw FP32 throughput of the B770. In FP16, the gap widens dramatically: the B300 records 1,231.8 TFLOPS with a 16:1 ratio, while the B770 records 39.32 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The B300's FP16 figure is about 31 times higher, reflecting a fundamentally different compute orientation.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The B300 uses 144 GB of HBM3e across a 4096-bit bus, yielding 4.10 TB/s. The B770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s. The B300 provides eight times the bandwidth. The B770 does hold an advantage in pixel throughput, recording 307.2 GPixel/s against the B300's 48.77 GPixel/s, a factor of roughly 6.3 in favor of the Intel part. Texture rate also favors the B300 at 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s for the B770, roughly a 1.96 times margin.

Shading unit counts reinforce the compute split. The B300 carries 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The B770 carries 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The B300 has about 4.6 times as many shading units, but the B770 has about 5.3 times as many ROPs. The B300 also brings 592 tensor cores; the B770 lists none in the database. The B770 lists 32 ray tracing cores; the B300 lists none in the database.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The B770 runs a 2100 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the B300 runs a 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost. The B770's boost clock is about 18% higher. Both use a 2000 MHz memory clock, though the B770's effective rate is 16 Gbps and the B300's effective rate is 8 Gbps, an artifact of different memory technologies.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear functional separation rather than a direct competition. The NVIDIA B300 is a server accelerator with 1400 W TDP, SXM module form factor, no display outputs, and no recorded DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support in the database. The Intel Arc B770 is a client graphics card with a 225 W TDP, dual-slot design, PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, and full display output support including 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The B300 targets compute-heavy server workloads; the B770 targets conventional rendering and display workloads.

Users selecting a GPU for rasterization and pixel output should look at the B770, which records higher pixel rate, higher ROP count, higher boost clock, and a complete graphics API stack. Users selecting a GPU for FP32 or FP16 compute should look at the B300, which records dramatically higher shading unit count, tensor core presence, FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. The B300 also records a more recent production status of Active, while the B770 lists no production status. The B300's release date is September 2025; the B770's release date is December 2025.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, belonging to the Battlemage generation within the Arc 7 family. Its predecessor is listed as Alchemist. The process node is 5 nm at TSMC, with a die size of 368 mm². Transistor count is listed as unknown.

The NVIDIA B300 uses the GB110 chip built on the Blackwell Ultra architecture, belonging to the Server Blackwell generation. Its predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin. The process node is also 5 nm at TSMC, but transistor count is recorded as 104,000 million, a figure the B770 cannot match because its transistor count is unknown. The B300 lists no die size in the database.

The B770 includes 32 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The B300 includes 592 tensor cores and no ray tracing cores in the recorded data. This split defines the architectural intent: the B770 is built for accelerated ray tracing workloads on client hardware, while the B300 is built for tensor-based server compute. The B770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B300 lists no API support in the database, consistent with a headless server accelerator.

Memory architecture differs completely. The B770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The B300 uses 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus. The B300's memory configuration provides 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth, which is eight times the B770's 512.0 GB/s. The B770's effective memory clock of 16 Gbps is double the B300's 8 Gbps effective rate, but the B300's much wider bus overwhelms that clock advantage.

Power and delivery architecture also differ. The B770 draws 225 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 550 W, using a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector configuration. The B300 draws 1400 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1800 W, using an SXM module form factor with no power connector listing. The B770 is dual-slot; the B300 is an SXM module, meaning it is not installed in a standard PCIe slot despite carrying a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface listing.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip; the B300 uses the GB110. The B770 belongs to the Battlemage generation; the B300 belongs to the Server Blackwell generation. The B770's die is 368 mm²; the B300 lists no die size. The B300 lists 104,000 million transistors; the B770 lists unknown.

Clock speeds differ: the B770 records 2100 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the B300 records 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost. Memory size differs: 16 GB versus 144 GB. Memory type differs: GDDR6 versus HBM3e. Bus width differs: 256 bit versus 4096 bit. Bandwidth differs: 512.0 GB/s versus 4.10 TB/s.

Compute resources differ: 4,096 shading units versus 18,944, 256 TMUs versus 592, 128 ROPs versus 24, 32 ray tracing cores versus none, no tensor cores versus 592. Pixel rate favors the B770 at 307.2 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the B300 at 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s. FP32 favors the B300 at 76.99 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS. FP16 favors the B300 at 1,231.8 TFLOPS versus 39.32 TFLOPS.

Power differs: 225 W versus 1400 W. Slot width differs: dual-slot versus SXM module. Power connectors differ: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus no listing. Suggested PSU differs: 550 W versus 1800 W. Bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs differ: 1x HDMI 2.1a plus 3x DisplayPort 2.1 versus no outputs. API support differs: full DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support versus none recorded. Production status differs: none listed versus Active. Release dates differ: December 2025 versus September 2025. Predecessors differ: Alchemist versus Server Hopper. Successor differs: none listed versus Server Rubin.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA B300 records 76.99 TFLOPS FP32, which is roughly 3.9 times the Intel Arc B770's 19.66 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B770 support display outputs?

A: Yes, the B770 lists 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The B300 lists no display outputs.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA B300 records 4.10 TB/s from 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus. The Intel Arc B770 records 512.0 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the NVIDIA B300 support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: The database lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support for the B300. The Intel Arc B770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The B770 records a 225 W TDP with a suggested 550 W PSU. The B300 records a 1400 W TDP with a suggested 1800 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU includes tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA B300 includes 592 tensor cores. The Intel Arc B770 lists no tensor cores. Conversely, the B770 lists 32 ray tracing cores while the B300 lists none.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc B770 wins in pixel throughput, recording 307.2 GPixel/s against the B300's 48.77 GPixel/s. It also wins in ROP count, 128 versus 24, and in boost clock, 2400 MHz versus 2032 MHz. It wins in ray tracing core presence, listing 32 cores while the B300 lists none. It wins in API coverage, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 while the B300 lists no APIs. It wins in display connectivity, offering HDMI and DisplayPort outputs where the B300 offers none. It wins in memory clock effective rate, 16 Gbps versus 8 Gbps, and in slot compatibility, fitting a dual-slot PCIe 4.0 x16 form factor rather than an SXM module.

The NVIDIA B300 wins in shading units, 18,944 versus 4,096. It wins in TMUs, 592 versus 256. It wins in FP32 throughput, 76.99 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS. It wins in FP16 throughput, 1,231.8 TFLOPS versus 39.32 TFLOPS. It wins in memory capacity, 144 GB versus 16 GB. It wins in memory bandwidth, 4.10 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. It wins in tensor cores, 592 versus none. It wins in transistor count, 104,000 million versus unknown. It wins in bus interface generation, PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. It wins in production status, listed as Active. It wins in texture rate, 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The B770 is the choice for client rendering, ray tracing, and any workload requiring display output or a standard graphics API. The B300 is the choice for server compute, tensor workloads, FP16-heavy processing, and applications that can use 144 GB of HBM3e memory. The B770's higher pixel rate and ROP count make it suitable for rasterization-heavy tasks. The B300's massive FP16 throughput and tensor core count make it suitable for AI and high-performance compute tasks. Neither product's recorded data suggests it can substitute for the other in its primary domain.