Intel Arc B770 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 Comparison

Intel Arc B770 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 occupy a similar performance tier, with both cards landing at the 50th percentile in the database’s broader GPU rankings. The recorded data shows two very different designs that reach comparable positions through distinct architectural strategies. The B770 uses Intel’s Xe2-HPG architecture on the BMG-G31 chip, while the RTX 4070 AD103 relies on NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace architecture. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities largely end there.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two cards, and neither card lists any nearest rivals in its profile. The wins counters show zero for both sides, meaning there are no recorded comparative scores to walk through. What the data does provide are the raw compute metrics that would shape such a matchup.

The RTX 4070 AD103 holds a significant lead in raw floating-point throughput. Its FP32 performance reaches 29.15 TFLOPS, while the Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS. That is a 48% advantage for the NVIDIA card in standard single-precision compute. The gap in FP16 is even more striking. The RTX 4070 AD103 executes FP16 at the same 29.15 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not split its shader resources for half-precision work. The Arc B770 reaches 39.32 TFLOPS in FP16, but only through a 2:1 rate, which implies it uses specialized hardware or a packed path rather than full-rate shader execution.

In pixel throughput, the Arc B770 posts 307.2 GPixel/s against 158.4 GPixel/s for the RTX 4070 AD103. That gives Intel’s card a 94% advantage in raw pixel fill. The texture side shows a smaller but still notable gap: the B770 achieves 614.4 GTexel/s versus 455.4 GTexel/s for the RTX 4070 AD103, a 35% lead. These numbers suggest the Intel card is heavily optimized for rasterization throughput per clock, while the NVIDIA card concentrates more of its die on shader and ray tracing resources.

Memory bandwidth is nearly identical. The Arc B770 delivers 512.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus using GDDR6 at 16 Gbps effective. The RTX 4070 AD103 delivers 504.2 GB/s over a 192-bit bus using GDDR6X at 21 Gbps effective. The B770 edges ahead by roughly 1.5% in raw bandwidth, but the RTX 4070 AD103 achieves almost the same figure with a narrower bus, relying on faster memory technology.

Architecture Differences

The Arc B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip with Xe2-HPG architecture, part of Intel’s Battlemage generation under the Arc 7 product line. The RTX 4070 AD103 uses the AD103 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, part of NVIDIA’s GeForce 40-series. Both chips come from TSMC’s 5 nm process, which gives them a common manufacturing baseline, but their internal organizations diverge sharply.

The Intel chip measures 368 mm² with a transistor count listed as unknown in the database. The NVIDIA chip measures 379 mm² and packs 45,900 million transistors, yielding a density of 121.1M per square millimeter. The RTX 4070 AD103 is only slightly larger physically but carries a far higher transistor population, which reflects NVIDIA’s denser logic and dedicated hardware blocks.

Shader configuration differs in a fundamental way. The Arc B770 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The RTX 4070 AD103 has 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. NVIDIA’s card has 44% more shader units, but Intel’s card has 39% more TMUs and double the ROP count. This explains the fill-rate advantages: the B770 dedicates more of its die to texture and pixel processing, while the RTX 4070 AD103 spreads its resources across a larger shader array.

Ray tracing hardware also differs. The Arc B770 includes 32 RT cores, while the RTX 4070 AD103 includes 46 RT cores. The RTX 4070 AD103 also adds 184 tensor cores, which the Arc B770 does not list at all. The presence of tensor cores gives NVIDIA’s card a dedicated path for AI-accelerated workloads, though the database does not record any benchmark results that quantify this advantage.

Memory architecture sets the two cards apart as well. The Arc B770 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The RTX 4070 AD103 offers 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus. The Intel card provides 33% more capacity, while the NVIDIA card uses a faster memory type. Both end up with nearly identical bandwidth, but the capacity difference could matter for workloads that exceed 12 GB.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103, at 29.15 TFLOPS, is 48% ahead of the Arc B770’s 19.66 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The Arc B770 carries 16 GB of GDDR6, while the RTX 4070 AD103 carries 12 GB of GDDR6X. The Intel card has 4 GB more capacity, but both deliver similar bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 504.2 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 has 46 RT cores, while the Arc B770 has 32 RT cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Arc B770 is rated at 225 W TDP, and the RTX 4070 AD103 is rated at 200 W TDP. Both cards list a suggested 550 W power supply.

Q: Are these cards the same physical size?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 measures 240 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Arc B770’s dimensions are not recorded in the database. Both are dual-slot cards.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The display outputs differ: the Arc B770 offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the RTX 4070 AD103 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is the same, 5 nm TSMC, and both use PCIe 4.0 x16, but that is where the common ground ends.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The Arc B770 has a higher base clock at 2100 MHz versus 1920 MHz for the RTX 4070 AD103. The boost clocks are closer: 2400 MHz for the Intel card and 2475 MHz for the NVIDIA card, giving the RTX 4070 AD103 a 3% edge at peak boost. Memory clocks differ substantially, with the Arc B770 running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) and the RTX 4070 AD103 at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective).

Shader resources favor NVIDIA in count but Intel in organization. The RTX 4070 AD103 has 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Arc B770 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. Ray tracing cores favor NVIDIA at 46 versus 32, and tensor cores exist only on the NVIDIA card at 184.

Memory capacity and type both differ: 16 GB GDDR6 versus 12 GB GDDR6X. Bus width also differs: 256-bit versus 192-bit. Bandwidth is nearly equal, at 512.0 GB/s versus 504.2 GB/s.

Power specifications show the Arc B770 at 225 W TDP and the RTX 4070 AD103 at 200 W TDP. Power connectors differ: the Intel card uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin, while the NVIDIA card uses a single 16-pin connector. Both recommend a 550 W power supply.

Display outputs differ in standard. The Arc B770 uses HDMI 2.1a and DisplayPort 2.1, while the RTX 4070 AD103 uses HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX 4070 AD103 has recorded physical dimensions of 240 mm by 110 mm by 40 mm, and the Arc B770’s dimensions are absent from the database.

Production status and release timing differ. The RTX 4070 AD103 is marked as end-of-life with a release date of February 2024, and its successor is listed as GeForce 50. The Arc B770’s release date is listed as December 2025, with no production status recorded. Its predecessor is Alchemist. The RTX 4070 AD103 has a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the Arc B770 has no MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc B770 wins in pixel fill rate, delivering 307.2 GPixel/s, which is 94% higher than the RTX 4070 AD103’s 158.4 GPixel/s. It also wins in texture throughput with 614.4 GTexel/s versus 455.4 GTexel/s, a 35% lead. The Intel card offers more memory capacity at 16 GB versus 12 GB, and it uses a wider 256-bit memory bus. It also has double the ROP count, 128 versus 64, which aligns with its pixel throughput advantage.

The RTX 4070 AD103 wins in FP32 compute, reaching 29.15 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS, and it matches that figure in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. It has more shading units at 5888 versus 4096, more RT cores at 46 versus 32, and it is the only card with tensor cores, 184 of them. It runs at a slightly higher boost clock of 2475 MHz versus 2400 MHz. It also draws less power at 200 W versus 225 W.

The data suggests a split personality. For workloads that stress rasterization throughput, such as high-resolution pixel shading or texture-heavy scenes, the Arc B770’s fill-rate advantages and larger frame buffer give it a structural edge. For general compute, ray tracing, and AI-adjacent tasks, the RTX 4070 AD103’s shader count, RT core count, and tensor core presence point to an advantage, though no benchmark scores in the database confirm these theoretical leads.

The Verdict

The database records no direct performance scores for either card, so any selection must rest on the architectural specifications alone. The Arc B770 targets a different workload profile than the RTX 4070 AD103. Its 128 ROPs, 256 TMUs, and 16 GB memory configuration position it for rasterization-heavy scenarios where pixel and texture throughput dominate. Its FP32 performance is lower, but its fill rates are substantially higher.

The RTX 4070 AD103 presents a more compute-oriented package. Its 5888 shading units and 29.15 TFLOPS FP32 rate make it the stronger choice for shader-bound work. Its 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores add capabilities the Arc B770 does not match in hardware count. Its 12 GB of memory is smaller, but its bandwidth nearly matches the Intel card, and it does so at a lower TDP of 200 W versus 225 W.

The Arc B770 is the pick for users who prioritize raw rasterization throughput, higher memory capacity, and the newer DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The RTX 4070 AD103 is the pick for users who need higher FP32 compute, more ray tracing cores, tensor core acceleration, and lower power consumption. The lack of recorded benchmarks leaves the actual performance relationship unverified, but the specification sheet draws a clear line between a fill-rate-focused design and a compute-focused design.